Oral Answers to Questions

WORK AND PENSIONS

The Secretary of State was asked—

Minimum Income Guarantee

Norman Lamb: If he will make a statement on the take-up rate of the minimum income guarantee.

Ian McCartney: More than 2 million pensioners benefit from the minimum income guarantee. Those pensioners are on average £20 a week better off. Some 3,400 pensioners in the North Norfolk constituency are claiming MIG.
	We have introduced several measures to make it easier for pensioners to understand and claim their entitlement, including a new 10-page claim form and a dedicated MIG claim line, and claims for MIG are now invited when pensioners apply for their retirement pension.

Norman Lamb: May I draw the Minister's attention to research carried out by a university of East Anglia student, Victoria O'Brien, which I will send to him? It sets out the extent and impact of the lack of take-up of the minimum income guarantee in North Norfolk and nationally. In particular, I draw his attention to the estimate that in North Norfolk alone the poorest pensioners are failing to receive between £2.5 million and £4.5 million. The impact on them, and on their access to food, heating and so on, is obviously considerable. What further steps is the Minister taking, beyond the big initiative back in 2000, to ensure that the poorest pensioners get what money is due to them?

Ian McCartney: I would welcome a copy of the review of MIG by the hon. Gentleman's constituent. Local authorities also conduct reviews. In the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Stalybridge and Hyde (James Purnell), my Department, the local authority and community groups have collectively made a great effort extensively to increase the number of those who can benefit from MIG. We will do anything that we can to achieve that in North Norfolk and more widely between now and the introduction of the pension credit, which will be a further major boost by the Government to older people's income.
	In my first answer, I told the hon. Gentleman about some of the measures that we have taken, but since September last year we have also been making more information available. We have been looking at older people's life cycle events and linking those to our attempts to involve them in claims. We have introduced a dedicated Pension Service, the role of which is to act as a first-hand evidence system and an advocate on behalf of older people. Between now and the introduction of the pension credit, the Government are taking a whole range of measures, including advertising and making direct contact with older people and with organisations that represent them. We want to ensure that we build on the success of benefiting 2 million people.
	Let me put the matter into context: when we came into power, more than 2 million pensioners were not getting the benefit of MIG, which we introduced from a standing start. Those pensioners were in poverty, forgotten about and voiceless, but under this Government they are out of poverty and have a very strong voice.

James Purnell: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the pilot programme to which he referred has increased the take-up of MIG from 76 per cent. to 81 per cent. in less than 18 months? Will he consider encouraging all local authorities to set targets to raise the take-up of MIG in that way, specifically using the unique system developed in Tameside whereby pensioners can claim online? Just by putting in their national insurance number and their council tax benefit number, they can automatically find out whether or not they are entitled to MIG.

Ian McCartney: I honestly did not know that my hon. Friend was behind me when I mentioned him; I thought that I would give him a plug for his excellent work anyway. I hope to visit his borough in the next few months. It has an exemplary record in introducing systems of working directly in the community. Those include making household visits to everyone over 60, introducing new technology, setting up local advice centres in conjunction with our departmental officers and working with community groups. As a consequence, there has been a huge increase in the take-up of MIG there. Indeed, more than £800,000 of additional income has been claimed through MIG simply as a result of the campaign.
	I shall study that best practice in the hope that we can introduce it as part of the local work by the Pension Service. We need to look at the best of what local authorities do and at the best of what we do, put the two together and ensure that every pensioner who is entitled to income from the Government gets it.

Paul Goodman: With up to a quarter of those eligible for MIG not taking it up and with the take-up of housing benefit and council tax benefit falling, is it not now clear that the Government's mania for means-testing, which leads to low take-up, is betraying the very vulnerable people whom they were elected to represent?

Ian McCartney: One of the main reasons why the take-up of housing benefit has fallen is not a lack of take-up by older people but the fact that the Government have got more than 1 million people back into work. They are getting a fair wage, so they do not have to claim housing benefit, unlike the position that they were left in by the previous Government. As well as MIG, we are introducing the pension credit, and I hope that the hon. Gentleman will support that measure in the Lobby on Thursday. The pension credit means not only that5.1 million pensioners will get additional income, but that, for the first time, many pensioners will get access to both housing benefit and council tax benefit because of our changes to the rules on capital. That would never have been done under the Conservatives.

Frank Roy: The Minister will agree that take-up of any benefit is important, but it is especially vital for our poorer pensioners. Will he assure me that pensioners will be able to visit the new Pension Service agency centres throughout the country and speak to staff face to face to ensure that they receive the benefit to which they are entitled?

Ian McCartney: I thank my hon. Friend for that question. One of the new pension centres is situated in his constituency. It will be welcomed by pensioners in Scotland and will provide new jobs in the area. The role of the Pension Service is to create pension centres that will deal with up to 80 per cent. of the total case load. The other 20 per cent. includes household visits, take-up and special needs campaigns and issues associated with people with special needs such as language and disability. We will focus the local service to deal with that work on a local basis. Older people will have the choice of doing their business through pension centres such as the one at Motherwell or receiving home visits and participating in other local activities. By providing that choice, we will make improvements for the older pensioners who need to access such services from time to time.

Pensions

Angela Watkinson: When the ratios of pensioners' income being derived from funded pensions from the state will be reversed.

Alistair Darling: In 1998, we set out our long-term objective of ensuring that funded pension provision is substantially increased. That remains our position.

Angela Watkinson: I see three obstacles to achieving the Government's target of 40 per cent. of pensions deriving from state funding: first, the increasing number of pensioners on means-tested benefits; secondly, the poor performance of many private pension plans, which are giving pensioners a much poorer income than they ever anticipated; and thirdly, the very poor performance of mortgage endowments, which means that many pensioners will not clear their mortgage debts and will still be making mortgage payments in their retirement years.

Alistair Darling: The hon. Lady makes three points. In relation to endowment products, she raises a matter of concern, especially for people who were possibly not given the right advice some years ago. Of course, the regulatory framework has been greatly strengthened since that time, but she is right to express concern about people in that position. She also referred to private pension funds. As we discussed in the previous Question Time and on other occasions, increased longevity and the fall in the stock market have caused a number of companies to rethink their position. Interestingly, in the now corrected Office for National Statistics data, of which the hon. Member for Havant (Mr. Willetts) made so much, we find not only that there was no £100 billion fall in pension assets, as he claimed, but that contributions rose by£27 billion, which is encouraging.
	In making her first point, the hon. Lady complained about the pension credit, which will benefit more than half of pensioner households by an average of £400 a year. If the Conservatives are against that, we look forward to hearing more from them. About 2 million people are benefiting from the minimum income guarantee, which will be £100 next year. The state second pension sees18 million people gain, and some of them are getting more than double what they would have received under the former state earnings-related pension scheme.
	The hon. Lady was right to raise her point about endowment mortgages. On her other two concerns, the Government will make proposals on private pensions, and we are absolutely right to make state provision available, especially for those on low incomes, and to ensure that saving pays—something that never used to be the case.

Frank Field: Does the Secretary of State accept that the great driving force affecting funded provision is the new accountancy rules, which will make it more difficult for the Government to achieve objectives that the whole House supports? Is there not a case for suggesting that the Government should request the accountancy body to withdraw the rules to allow further consideration? Some accountancy rules are necessary in deciding what liabilities appear on what balance sheets, but the current rules are harmful to long-term funded pension provision.

Alistair Darling: My right hon. Friend refers to the accounting rule commonly known as FRS17. It is not FRS17 or any other accounting rule that is closing down pensions: companies are choosing to close down those pensions, but they should take a long-term view on their pensions just as they do on other matters. They would not make a major investment decision on one set of accounts, and they should not make a long-term decision on pension funds purely in relation to what is shown in respect of one accounting requirement. I have told the Accounting Standards Board that I think that FRS17 is exacerbating an already difficult situation. I find it difficult to understand why we have an accounting standard that is not shared by other countries—the standard used in the United States, for example, is different—and I have suggested to the board that it might be better for everyone concerned if we had a standard that allowed companies to look at their pension funds over a period of years, rather than taking a snapshot decision that could be grossly misleading.
	I must make the point that companies considering their pension funds should themselves take a long-term view, and that simply getting rid of, or rewriting, FRS17 would not solve the problem that some occupational funds face. I certainly would not argue in favour of the Government taking over accounting standards, because I believe that there is some merit in those matters being independently scrutinised. I happen to think that the Accounting Standards Board has got it wrong on this occasion, and that it should accept that.

Steve Webb: Will the Secretary of State acknowledge that the lesson of history is that one group that, on average, does badly out of privately funded pensions is women? Women past and present tend to have fewer and lower occupational pensions, and lower private pensions. Is it not also the case that only one in three of the Government's new shiny stakeholder pensions have gone to a woman? Will the Secretary of State tell us what projections his Department has produced of the future entitlements of today's working women to funded pensions? If no such projections have been produced, will he commission a study of women's pension entitlements, to ensure that history does not repeat itself and that women do not remain the poor relation in private pension provision?

Alistair Darling: The hon. Gentleman omitted—by accident, I am sure—to mention that most of the gainers under the pension credit will be women. He is right to say that women have not done so well out of funded pensions—partly because of low pay, and partly because, historically, there were fewer women in the labour market—and that the beneficiaries have predominantly been men. The pension credit, however, will predominantly benefit women. The state second pension—which I think that the hon. Gentleman opposed, although I might be wrong about that—will also benefit women, particularly those on low wages. Indeed, some 18 million people on low wages, and others, will gain from the state second pension, and women who take career breaks to look after children or other people will also now get a pension, whereas in the past they got none. So, in relation to both the pension credit and the state second pension, women have gained as a result of the changes that the Government have made.

Child Support Agency

Huw Edwards: What measures are taken against self-employed absent parents who accumulate excessive arrears to the Child Support Agency.

Alistair Darling: Assessing liability will be simpler under the new scheme, so a higher proportion of the agency's time will be spent on enforcement. Changes to legislation since January 2001 have enhanced the CSA's powers to recover sums due. For example, non-resident parents now face a penalty of up to £1,000 for refusing to co-operate.

Huw Edwards: I thank my right hon. Friend and congratulate the Government on certain changes that are being made. Does he agree, however, that it is disgraceful that certain self-employed fathers can escape their responsibilities to the Child Support Agency and to their children? I draw to his attention the case of Mr. Julian Barnes, who has made not one child maintenance payment to his former partner, Elaine Lanchbury, in seven years, and to that of Mr. Alan Shinton, who was recently assessed and ordered to pay the CSA £19,295.19. Does my right hon. Friend agree that people who are responsible for bringing children into this world must be responsible for their upbringing? Will every effort be made to make these parents maintain their responsibilities?

Alistair Darling: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. Responsibility for maintaining children rests with the parents of those children. When we talk about the Child Support Agency, we should never forget that we are talking about making sure that money goes to support children. That is sometimes overlooked by some of the parties involved.
	In relation to the self-employed, my hon. Friend is right to say that, in the past, too many such individuals have managed to escape an award being made and enforced, simply by refusing to hand over information. As a result of powers that we took in the child support legislation passed two years ago, it is now possible for the CSA to get information from the Inland Revenue so that individuals cannot play one part of the state off against another.
	I am grateful to my hon. Friend for drawing both those cases to the attention of my noble Friend, Baroness Hollis—[Interruption.] Getting up at 5 am is starting to play tricks on me.
	Under the new system, which I want to introduce as quickly as possible, the agency will be able to put the calculation of maintenance in place more quickly, and to get payments made without the delay that is unfortunately characteristic of the present system. The situation will improve and, once the new system is in place, it should do so quite dramatically.

Sydney Chapman: I echo the words of the hon. Member for Monmouth (Mr. Edwards), but will the Secretary of State's new assessment regulations cover the unacceptable situation, which I suspect all hon. Members have in their case files, of a self-employed man who deserts his wife or partner, leaving the children, and then claims that his income is a quarter of the actual amount? Although I agree that it is difficult for the CSA to find out the exact position, should not there be some system under which the burden of proof falls on the deserting father, rather than his wife having to prove that he is earning much more than he claims?

Alistair Darling: One reason why we took additional powers was to enable the CSA to access the records lodged with the Inland Revenue. It was very difficult to do so in the past. I am sorry that some Conservative Members opposed that measure when it went through the Commons. It is right that we should be able to access information held by the Inland Revenue. Very often, we found that people would not tell the CSA about their income, but that the Inland Revenue knew of it. We are keeping all those matters under review. The key must be to ensure that the money due to the child of that self-employed person—it is not for the benefit of the former spouse or partner—is paid, and as quickly as possible.

Russell Brown: I fully support my hon. Friend the Member for Monmouth (Mr. Edwards), but may I draw to the Secretary of State's attention a case that has led to arrears for one of my constituents of £30,000? A woman with three children has not received a penny from her ex-partner. She has been to an appeals tribunal twice and won twice. Her ex-partner has been found guilty of diverting his income, yet nothing has happened. Such situations are atrocious, and even something as simple as removing an individual's driving licence would clearly help. Does my right hon. Friend agree that we should put more pressure on some of these absent parents?

Alistair Darling: The common theme of all three questions is that the agency should spend more time on enforcement. I wholeheartedly agree. The problem under the present system is that too much time goes into calculating what is due. The key is to make the calculation quickly and then to spend more time on enforcement. My hon. Friend will know that we took powers two years ago to ask courts to remove driving licences when people would not comply. Interestingly, when courts have been invited to do so, all bar one of those affected paid the money that was due. That shows that there is some value in ensuring that people's responsibilities are brought home to them.

John Barrett: Can the Secretary of State give any comfort to the many mothers who are owed excessive amounts by announcing a time scale for change in the current system? In my constituency, one parent is owed in excess of £15,000 by a husband who is apparently living the high life.

Alistair Darling: As the agency improves its performance in calculation and compliance, more effort is going into recovering sums due. As I told the House in March, until I am satisfied that the new computer network that is necessary to operate the new system of child support is operating effectively and acceptably, I am not prepared to authorise my officials to commission it. I hope to be able to tell the House something in the not too distant future. I am pleased to say that testing has continued and that good progress is being made. As soon as I am satisfied that the system will operate in the way intended, I will let the House know and, as I undertook to hon. Members,I will give sufficient notice in advance of its introduction so that all concerned can prepare for it.

Stakeholder Pensions

Bridget Prentice: What assessment he has made of the contribution of stakeholder pensions to saving for retirement.

Maria Eagle: Stakeholder pensions have made an encouraging start, and figures from the Association of British Insurers show that about 815,000 had been bought up to the end of March 2002. They have also had a wider beneficial effect on pension provision, helping to drive down other personal pension charges and stimulating the provision of personal pensions. Everyone now has access to a good-value pension arrangement. That is all good news for consumers.

Bridget Prentice: While I appreciate my hon. Friend's reply, two things concern me. The first is the suggestion from the Financial Services Authority that there should be compulsion on private pensions and the second is the report published today that says that a number of private pension companies are apparently unaware that we are all living longer thanks to wonderful advances in medical science and our health service. Does she have any comment on compulsion in pensions and what has she to say to encourage people to take up stakeholder pensions, given their success so far?

Maria Eagle: My hon. Friend is right that there has been discussion around and about in the pensions industry on whether there should be compulsion. Opposition Members have raised the issue in debates, as have my hon. Friends occasionally. The Government have no plans to make it compulsory for employers to contribute to their work force's stakeholder pensions. In respect of living longer,I agree with my hon. Friend that it is entirely a good thing. Perhaps we should make that clear. [Interruption.] I am not going to claim that the Government are making people live longer. It is a Monday afternoon; I am not going to make claims like that.
	The fact that we now have a low-cost simple vehicle that people can save into helps to ensure that they can make proper provision for their old age. People now live longer in retirement, so it becomes all the more important that they make proper provision during their working lives to enable them to enjoy their retirement with an adequate pension. In that respect, the stakeholder pension is important. The value of new regular pension premiums rose by 52 per cent. in 2001. That is due in part to stakeholder pensions—I am not going to say that it is all due to them—and it shows that when people are provided with simple low-cost vehicles that they can save into for their retirement, they start to do so. Members on both sides of the House should welcome and encourage that, and I hope they all do.

Kelvin Hopkins: I am in favour of increased life expectancy, having reached an age when mortality becomes all the more apparent. My hon. Friend will have seen the weekend reports that private pensions are not worth while for those on average or lower incomes. She will also be aware, as we all are, of the deterioration in employee occupational pensions. Is it not time for the Government seriously to consider a substantial increase in the basic state pension, funded by compulsory savings from employees and compulsory larger contributions from employers?

Maria Eagle: First and foremost, my hon. Friend is looking particularly well this afternoon, even if he is feeling mortality closing in on him. On his points about the basic state pension, Government policy in respect of the balance between state pensions and private provision is clear and he will have heard it discussed during debates on the State Pension Credit Bill. We believe that the balance is about right. We all recognise the fact that the key to ensuring that people have enough money to lead a pleasant and well-provided old age is a mix between private and public pensions. We must encourage people to save, where they are able to do so, into a good private pension, and that is what we intend to do.

Labour Market

Bill Rammell: If he will make a statement on trends in the labour market since11 September.

Nick Brown: There are problems in the world economy, but the UK is withstanding them better than other major countries. Compared with last September, there are more than 70,000 more people in employment and unemployment is broadly unchanged. Our labour market is in a strong position: the number of people in employment is at a record level—up by more than 1.5 million since 1997. The number of job vacancies is high—more than 10,000 are being notified to jobcentres every working day; and recent unemployment levels are the lowest since 1975.

Bill Rammell: I welcome that response, which clearly indicates that, contrary to some predictions, we have not gone into an employment downturn since 11 September. Indeed, in my Harlow constituency, the claimant count this month shows that unemployment figures continue to fall. However, does my right hon. Friend agree that certain sectors of the economy, especially telecommunications, face continuing problems because of the worldwide situation? Does he agree that where redundancies occur, it is the responsibility of both national and local government to work with employers and trade unions to help people to retrain and up-skill to take advantage of the job opportunities that are available?

Nick Brown: Yes, I agree with my hon. Friend. On job losses in the telecommunications industry, specifically in his constituency, I can confirm that Harlow jobcentre is in touch with local employers and that we shall do whatever we can to stand the corner of his constituents. Nevertheless, as he says, it is a fact that unemployment has fallen—it has halved in Harlow's travel-to-work area since 1997.

John Wilkinson: The Minister said that notwithstanding problems in the world economy, the United Kingdom's employment trends are better than those in many other countries. Is it not interesting that since 11 September last year—and, indeed, for some months before that—those trends have been particularly favourable compared with those in the eurozone? Will the Minister do the sensible and honourable thing on behalf of the hard-working British public in recommending to the Treasury, both to the First Lord and to the Chancellor, that we keep the pound?

Nick Brown: I always try to do the sensible thing on behalf of the hard-working British public. I think that our colleagues in the European Union have much to learn from the way in which we manage the labour market.

Peter Pike: My right hon. Friend will recognise that in constituencies such as mine, it is high-paid and high-skill jobs in the aerospace industry that have been lost or put at risk the most by what happened on 11 September. Will he reiterate that the Government remain committed, for the benefit of constituencies such as Burnley and, indeed, of the whole country's economy, to maintaining high-skill jobs at the sharp end and to doing everything possible for investment to secure those jobs in the future?

Nick Brown: I understand what my hon. Friend says. It is true that in constituencies such as Burnley the labour market is undergoing a period of adjustment. To address some of those local issues, we have introduced a number of special programmes designed to bear down on unemployment, especially long-term unemployment. My hon. Friend is right that there has been movement in the labour market away from employment in manufacturing towards employment in the service sector, but it would not be true to say that there are not secure, well-paid careers in the service sector—there are.

Anne McIntosh: Does the Minister agree that in this longest, deepest recession, which has been compounded by 11 September, two sectors—the airline industry and farming—have been particularly badly hit? Will he give some assurance to constituents of mine who came to see me having, in the case of the husband, just been made redundant from farming? Will people get a fairer hearing and more assistance from the jobcentre and Employment Service staff than was the case in that instance?

Nick Brown: I do not agree with the hon. Lady that we are in a long and deep recession. Indeed, there have never been so many people in employment. However, I am happy to consider cases of individual constituents who, according to the hon. Lady, have been displaced from employment in agriculture. It is fair to point out that agriculture employs fewer than 1 per cent. of the total work force, but if the hon. Lady has a constituent who is looking for work and needs help, and she writes to me about the case, I shall see what I can do.

David Cairns: The electronics sector has also suffered since 11 September. After many years of decline, unemployment in my constituency has risen sharply since 11 September.A characteristic of the sector is the number of people employed on short-term and casual contracts. Too often, Government employment initiatives are not sufficiently flexible to deal with people who experience periods of unemployment. Will my right hon. Friend consider the operation of Jobcentre Plus and the new deal to ascertain whether people on short-term contracts can be caught more quickly and helped back into work so that they can benefit from the booming economy elsewhere?

Nick Brown: Employment on short-term contracts is relatively low nationally, but if it is a peculiar feature of the labour market in my hon. Friend's constituency, I shall, of course, consider the problems that he mentioned. However, I must emphasise that the trend that he cites goes against the national trend. Perhaps he wishes to draw some local circumstance to my attention. I assure him that the staff who work for Jobcentre Plus—as it will become—are there to help his constituents. If he wants to draw a specific problem to my attention, I shall examine it.

Child Support Agency

Andrew Turner: How many staff vacancies there are in the Child Support Agency.

Malcolm Wicks: When expressed as the equivalent number of full-time posts, the latest available estimate for staff vacancies in the Child Support Agency is 798. At the end of March, the agency had just over 12,000 staff. That gives a vacancy rate of 6 per cent. We are taking several steps to fill those vacancies.

Andrew Turner: If there are so many vacancies, why does the Child Support Agency, like many other Government agencies, refuse to consider people over 65 who apply for jobs with them? Instead of waiting for Europe to direct the Government to do what is clearly right, why do not Ministers end Government age discrimination?

Malcolm Wicks: Many companies and public services have vacancies, not least because unemployment has declined—by 48 per cent. in the hon. Gentleman's constituency. We are taking several steps, which include recruiting and promoting opportunities for evening work and family friendly employment. I acknowledge that there is a debate about ageism and appropriate retirement rates. That will continue in future, because as hon. Members have pointed out earlier, we are all getting older.

Bill O'Brien: There will be a greater demand for staff at the Child Support Agency, and vacancies will increase when the reforms are introduced later this year. The reforms introduce two standards on maintenance payments. One is the new rate of 15 per cent. and the other is the old rate of 30 per cent. That will create a greater anomaly and more staff will have to be recruited to deal with it. Will my hon. Friend address that?

Malcolm Wicks: I do not recognise that the reforms will lead to more staff. We are simplifying the formula for child support and placing greater emphasis on enforcement. It was pointed out earlier that hon. Members of all parties are worried about absent parents who donot understand their obligations. We are therefore emphasising enforcement.
	I pay tribute to the staff of the CSA who, in the past five years, have seen maintenance increase from£400 million to £800 million. That is a credit to them.

Phyllis Starkey: As the Minister said, the new formula will increase the efficiency of the staff of the CSA but will it better take account of cases in which the care of children is genuinely shared 50:50 between the parents, especially as 100 per cent. of child benefit has to go to one parent?

Malcolm Wicks: Yes is the short answer. Some children are brought up by both parents and we want to encourage that. The formula therefore takes account of it.

Pensions

Hugo Swire: If he will make a statement of the number of final salary schemes that have closed since 1998.

Alistair Darling: Since 1998, about 4 per cent. of known defined benefit schemes have notified the pension schemes registry of their closure.The overriding issue is how much is being saved towards a pension. The fact is that most people are not saving enough towards their retirement. Therefore, building on the reforms we have already made, we shall be making further proposals to help individuals and companies to make provisions for retirement. As I said at the previous Work and Pensions Question Time, I expect to publish our proposals this autumn.

Hugo Swire: We are now witnessing the demise of the final salary pension scheme with the day-to-day closure of more and more of those schemes. Do the Secretary of State and his Government accept that the increasing burdens they have placed on such schemes since 1997 include the disastrous abolition of advance corporation tax relief, which is responsible for the precarious situation in which many of today's and tomorrow's pensioners find themselves?

Alistair Darling: No. Interestingly, the chairman of the National Association of Pension Funds said in his recent address to the association's annual conference, at which I spoke, that he and his association were not calling for a return to the old ACT system. When we made the changes four or five years ago, we also cut corporation tax. It is now at 30 per cent., something that the party of which the hon. Gentleman is a member never managed to achieve in its 18 years in power. That has helped investors, including pension funds.
	The real reason why companies are facing difficulties with their final salary schemes is, first, because of increased longevity, which means that costs are rising; and secondly, because the stock market has fallen quite dramatically, for reasons of which we are all aware. That is putting pressure on them. Their contribution holidays have ended and so on. The annuity rules have nothing to do with the final salary schemes. I can understand why the hon. Gentleman personally may want to see some changes: people in the top 5 per cent. of the income bracket may gain from them. However, the majority would not.
	As I have said, we want to build on the reforms that we have already made. We intend to bring forward proposals this autumn, which will build on the recommendations from the Sandler and Pickering reviews. They will help companies and individuals to make better provision for their retirement.

John McFall: Does the Secretary of State agree that the flight from final salary schemes is down not to FRS17 or the Government's inaction but to the almost £30 billion fall in equities in the market, as indicated by Boots, which moved from equities to bonds? Recognising that there is a £27 billion shortfall in savings, will he take the opportunity to ensure that companies that are not performing as they should by their employees close the savings gap? Otherwise, in future, many pensioners will be in penury.

Alistair Darling: My hon. Friend is right that there is a savings gap. Whether it is £27 billion or something near it, no one can be sure, but what is beyond doubt, as I said earlier, is that most people are not saving enough for their retirement. One of the measures that will help will be to strip away some of the unnecessary regulation in the pensions industry.
	We have reached the stage where the buying of pensions has become so complex that even when people want to get a pension and are seriously thinking about making provision for themselves, they are sometimes faced with a five or six-hour selling process. That is why about 10 days ago I advocated setting out perhaps a small range of stakeholder-type products suitable for pension savings. They would be simple, regulated products but the selling of them would not be so bound up in red tape, as it is at present. All these measures are being considered by the Sandler and Pickering reviews. We will publish them in the summer and publish proposals in the autumn.
	We are looking at other matters. There are measures that we can take to help individuals and companies to increase the amount of saving. I cite one example,in relation not to pensions but to ISAs. We were criticised heavily by the Conservative party when we replaced PEPs and TESSAs with ISAs. It is a fact that 12 million people, about one in four working adults, have saved £78 billion since ISAs were introduced. That shows what can be done with a simple, easy to understand product that removes some of the mystique and complexity that currently surrounds the selling of pensions.

Vincent Cable: Does the Secretary of State agree that the problem is not just that final salary schemes are closing, but that conditions for existing pensioners are often changed retrospectively by employers, and that trustees are proving ineffectual or insufficiently independent? Does he also agree that the arrangements need to be looked at afresh, to breed some confidence in this rather battered sector?

Alistair Darling: There has been criticism of some pension trustees. My hon. Friend the Member for Dumbarton(Mr. McFall) and my right hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field) asked about FRS17. In many cases, transparency in companies' affairs might have revealed serious problems with pension funds, particularly smaller funds, which tend not to be examined as efficiently as those of bigger companies. That is an example of how greater transparency and openness would help pensioners.
	The hon. Member for Twickenham (Dr. Cable) will doubtless be aware that, as part of our general review of pensions, Brian Davis—former chief executive of Nationwide building society—is examining the operation and powers of the Occupational Pensions Regulatory Authority. When he makes his recommendations later in the year, I hope to build on them, and on the general recommendations put before the House to improve pension provision in this country.

David Winnick: Does my right hon. Friend understand how deeply disappointing it is for long-serving employees to discover that, as a result of changes in their company's pension scheme, they will receive a significantly reduced occupational pension? That is totally unacceptable. What would happen if Members of Parliament and Officers of the House discovered late in the day that their anticipated pension was to be substantially reduced? This issue constitutes a clear injustice in the labour market, and I hope that my right hon. Friend will pursue the matter.

Alistair Darling: A company scheme involves a contractual agreement between the company concerned and its employees—it is not something that the Government underwrite or stand behind. Of course, the Government do pay money into contracted-out pension schemes and take certain steps through national insurance contributions and tax relief.
	On the general proposition, as I have told the House on several occasions, we are considering a range of measures that will help individuals as well as companies. As I said, it is not the accounting standard that is causing the difficulties with certain pension schemes. Not all companies that are deciding to close their pension schemes have to do so; in some circumstances, they could continue with them. Long and hard thought should be given to their obligations to their employees—both current and retired.

David Willetts: May I invite the Secretary of State to agree with the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner)—sadly, he is not in his place—the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Kilfoyle) and the many other of his colleagues who have signed early-day motion 1180, which expresses concern at the impact of advance corporation tax on the former registered dockworkers pension scheme? That early-day motion also notes that their dividend income has been reduced by 33 per cent., and that that income could have been reinvested, or provided higher benefits. Instead of the complacency that the Secretary of State has shown this afternoon, why does he not listen to his colleagues? They understand the damage that the tax increase is doing to people's pensions, and everything that their early-day motion says about the dockworkers pension scheme applies to every other pension fund in the country.

Alistair Darling: My right hon. Friend the Minister for Pensions has just reminded me that, under several of the privatisations that took place when the hon. Gentleman was a Minister and his party were in office, pension schemes were sometimes the biggest casualties. I had no idea that the hon. Gentleman has joined the campaign group to which he refers, and I am sure that they will welcome him as a new recruit.
	On the hon. Gentleman's central point, I do not accept the underlying proposition that he attributes to the early-day motion—I have not seen it—tabled by my hon. Friends. The changes that we made to the corporation tax regime four years' ago were entirely right. If the hon. Gentleman was right to argue that they were the cause of current problems, one would have expected them to have occurred four years' ago, but they did not. The problems have been provoked by two factors: companies are belatedly waking up to the fact that beneficiaries are living longer; and, for reasons that we all understand, the stock exchange has fallen dramatically. That has concentrated minds in an unprecedented way. Those are the underlying reasons for the current difficulties, and it is the Government's job to ensure that we introduce proposals that can help individuals and companies. That is precisely what we will do later this year.

Mark Hoban: If he will make a statement on the availability of occupational pension schemes for future pensioners.

Ian McCartney: It is estimated that occupational pension schemes are available to 16.4 million employees, or 66 per cent. of the total number of employees in Great Britain. Many of those employees who do not have access to an occupational scheme will have access to either a stakeholder scheme or the second state pension.

Mark Hoban: I thank the Minister for his response. Will he ensure that one of the outcomes of the numerous reviews that the Secretary of State outlined in his earlier answers will be a legal and regulatory framework that will ensure that the decline in occupational pension schemes is reversed, so that more occupational pension schemes will be available to future pensioners?

Ian McCartney: The whole purpose of the reviews is to ensure that we encourage people to save in a way that they have not previously, and that schemes do not suffer overbearing regulation or disproportionate costs. The difficulties of management of such schemes make it less likely that they will continue or even be set up in the first place. I would welcome the hon. Gentleman's views on the proposals when they are published. It is also important that we review proactively the role of the Occupational Pensions Regulatory Authority. It will be the first time that it has been reviewed since its establishment. The purpose of the review is to ensure that the body is recognised as one that represents the interests of pensioners when it considers the general problems of schemes or particular problems connected with the management of schemes.

Tim Boswell: Will the Minister of State take any notice of the chairman of the National Association of Pension Funds at its annual conference less than a fortnight ago when he said:
	"The Government is pursuing policies which have actually undermined company pensions."?
	Does not the Minister of State feel some regret now that the Budget last month made no reference to pensions or savings? In order to save the time of the House, I shall not invite him to read out the long list of companies that have changed their pension arrangements from defined benefit to defined contribution schemes. Instead, I invite him to name one company that has moved in the opposite direction in the past 12 months.

Ian McCartney: I would prefer to have a proper debate instead of juvenile ping-pong over the issue. So far this Question Time, we have had an adult debate about the issues. The hon. Gentleman asked for a list, so I shall give him one. The companies in question include BAE Systems, BP, British American Tobacco, Diageo, Corus, the John Lewis Partnership and Tesco, among others. However, I do not rest my case on that list. This is the first Government in a long time to set up several reviews in partnership with industry, the outcome of which will be to strip out regulations and burdens on schemes—both continuing and those being set up. This is the first Government to introduce stakeholder arrangements and pension forecasting. All that is being done in partnership with industry and, with all due respect to the hon. Gentleman, it is a hell of a different picture now compared with when he left office a few years ago.

Benefit Fraud

Mike Gapes: If he will make a statement on new measures he plans to combat benefit fraud.

Malcolm Wicks: In April, we introduced a range of measures using powers taken in the Fraud Act 2001 which will help us to tackle the fraudster. Investigators can now request information from banks and utilities to find evidence of fraud. They also have stronger powers to tackle employers who collude with their staff to defraud the benefit system. We now also have the power to remove benefits from those people who persistently abuse the system. That shows the Government's determination to crack down on the fraudster.

Mike Gapes: I welcome that reply, and those measures are long overdue. Previous Governments allowed far too much fraud by employers and unscrupulous people and it is good that this Government will put that right. Can the Minister give us some indication of the effectiveness of the measures that have been taken so far? Will he give consideration to further measures in the future, including perhaps biometric cards or other technological means to ensure the effectiveness of identity checks?

Malcolm Wicks: My hon. Friend is right to draw attention to the possibility of identity fraud. We have systems and technologies enabling us to identify it wherever possible, and we are beginning to win the war against the social-security fraudster. Between 1999 and March 2001 we reduced the amount of fraud and error in income support and jobseeker's allowance by 18 per cent., nearly double our first milestone of 10 per cent. Moreover, that was achieved a year ahead of schedule.

Archy Kirkwood: I acknowledge that much has been done, which is right and proper, but will the Minister turn his attention to housing benefit fraud and to the verification framework in particular? According to recent written answers and departmental research, central Government expenditure on the framework has amounted to nearly £1 billion, for a net win of £100 million annually. Bearing that in mind, along with some of the administrative delays caused by the framework, will the Minister ask his officials to conduct a cost-benefit analysis?
	Am I not right in thinking that last April, more than a year ago, the Department decided to undertake a housing benefit review? I do not think we have heard any more about that to date.

Malcolm Wicks: We are conducting a research exercise to produce an up-to-date figure for the amount of housing benefit fraud. We are not complacent, but we feel that the money we are spending will prove cost-effective. More and more local authorities are safeguarding the system by adopting the verification framework. They can now adopt chunks at a time, by means of a modular approach.
	As with fraud related to income support and jobseeker's allowance, we are confident that we are beginning to win the war—but yes, much more needs to be done.

Michael Jabez Foster: Does my hon. Friend agree that employers frequently know that their employees are cheating the system? Subject to evidence, should such employers not be prosecuted for aiding and abetting?

Malcolm Wicks: Yes. There is capacity in the system for employers to collude with employees, but we are on to the problem. It should be tackled, and it is being tackled.

David Willetts: How many national insurance numbers are there in the country? Will the Minister give us the latest figure, and tell us how much greater it is than the entire British population? Will he also tell us what measures he has taken to tackle abuse of national insurance numbers, one of the most rapidly growing forms of benefit fraud?

Malcolm Wicks: We are tackling the abuse of national insurance numbers. We now employ rigorous processes when people apply for them, and a number of people are turned down every week and every month.
	I realise that there is some confusion about the total amount of national insurance numbers. We are conducting an analysis in the Department, so that everyone knows what we have already made clear in parliamentary answers—that there is a difference between those of working age with national insurance numbers and those who have retired, but must still have numbers for obvious social-security purposes.

David Willetts: Is the Minister aware that there are more than 80 million national insurance numbers, 20 million more—

Alistair Darling: rose—

David Willetts: It seems that the Secretary of State is going to answer my question. I look forward to hearing his answer.
	Is the Minister aware that, according to the most recent parliamentary answer, there are more than 80 million national insurance numbers, over 20 million more than the entire British population? Whatever ingenious explanations the Minister offers, in terms of national insurance numbers for the deceased husbands of widows and suchlike, we still have a problem: far more national insurance numbers are being issued than there are people who legitimately need them.

Malcolm Wicks: Unlike a previous Administration, we are being rigorous about the issuing of national insurance numbers. As I have said, we turn down numerous people every week and every month. We are conducting an exercise so that we can explain fully to the House why the numbers in existence are in existence, but when someone dies, the widow or widower's entitlement is an issue. Common sense suggests that the national insurance number should therefore be retained.

Single Room Rent Restrictions

Gordon Marsden: What assessment he has made of the impact of single room rent restrictions on the accommodation situation in seaside and coastal towns.

Malcolm Wicks: We introduced improvements to the single room rent provisions last July. They now strike a more effective balance between ensuring that young people have access to accommodation while making sure that the benefit system does not provide them with better housing than young people who are in work.
	We also plan to commission a joint study with the Department for Transport, Local Government and the Regions to examine the impact of these changes later this year.

Gordon Marsden: Grateful though I am to my hon. Friend for that reply, does he appreciate that the present restrictions bear down particularly hard on young people in seaside and coastal towns who are looking for work? Streetlife, a charity in my constituency, said that it had about 30 landlords who would take young people presenting as homeless before the rent restriction was introduced. Since its introduction, the number has declined to zero. I ask my hon. Friend, in whom I have great faith, to speed up the review that is taking place over the summer and, notwithstanding that, to put some oomph into his officials, who have been remarkably complacent about the issue in recent years.

Malcolm Wicks: I can assure my hon. Friend that our officials have plenty of oomph—those who work on behalf of the House and the public are very energised people. We have changed the system for single roomrent. It used to be limited to the average cost of a non-self-contained room with a shared toilet and kitchen. It now allows someone to have exclusive use of a bedroom, with shared use of a toilet, bathroom, kitchen and living room. I looked up the evidence, and about71 per cent. of all single adults under 25 without children who live in the privately rented sector have accommodation of that kind. I am confident that we are striking the right balance but, of course, we keep all such matters closely under review.

Points of Order

Tam Dalyell: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Have you had any request from the Ministry of Defence to make a statement on the relief—let us use the polite word—of Brigadier Lane in Afghanistan? Does not the House of Commons deserve to know what the heck is going on in Afghanistan, particularly in the prisoner camps? If what was outlined in "The World Tonight" on Friday and to my hon. Friend the Member for Cynon Valley (Ann Clwyd) and me is true, it is almost holocaust-like and the west should be ashamed. If the reports are true, should not the House of Commons be told?

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman's first question was whether I had been contacted by any Minister with regard to a statement. The answer is no. It is the responsibility of the Minister concerned to come before the House.

Sydney Chapman: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I wish to raise, not for the first time, the inordinate length of ministerial replies to supplementary questions, as the Question Time that has just finished showed. Will you make a study of Hansard tomorrow and, if you believe it appropriate, write to Ministers or communicate with them to ask them to make their replies shorter? They really are becoming longer and longer.

Mr. Speaker: I have already made a study, and we reached only Question 10. I agree that ministerial replies to supplementaries are far too long. They should be brief, and so indeed should the supplementary questions. I hope that Ministers take note—we should get further down the Order Paper than Question 10.

BILL PRESENTED

Regulation of Child Care Providers

Mr. Geraint Davies, supported by Ms Debra Shipley, Jane Griffiths, Ms Karen Buck, Mr. Brian H. Donohoe, John Austin, Ms Julia Drown, Mr. Frank Cook, Chris McCafferty, Linda Perham, Ms Oona King and Siobhain McDonagh, presented a Bill to make provision about child care providers: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Friday 21 June, and to be printed [Bill 140].

Orders of the Day
	 — 
	Adoption and Children Bill
	 — 
	[3rd Allotted Day]

As amended in the Standing Committee, further considered.

Clause 81
	 — 
	Restriction on bringing children in

Jacqui Smith: I beg to move amendment No. 59, in page 44, line 21, after "are" insert "natural".

Mr. Speaker: I remind the House that with this we are discussing Government amendments Nos. 60, 61, 29, 298, 299, 255, 38, 27, 28, 306 and 39.

Jacqui Smith: The amendments are largely linked to the Bill's inter-country provisions, which are an important part of the package of measures that the Government are putting in place to ensure that inter-country adoption takes place only where, as a minimum, the same safeguards as for domestic adoptions have been applied.
	Clause 81 re-enacts the restrictions in the current legal framework that make it a criminal offence for British residents to bring a child into the United Kingdom for the purposes of adoption—in other words, intending to adopt them in the UK—unless they comply with prescribed requirements. The Adoption of Children from Overseas Regulations 2001 make it a requirement that prospective adopters apply to a local authority or voluntary adoption agency to be assessed and approved under similar procedures as those followed in domestic adoptions, and to have a certificate of eligibility issued by the Secretary of State.
	The clause also extends the restrictions to include British residents bringing a child into the UK whom they have adopted outside the British islands within the past six months and do not intend to adopt in the UK, thereby closing an important loophole. It is our intention that the prescribed requirements and conditions that must be met by people wanting to bring a child into the UK for the purposes of adoption—prospective adopters—should be similar to those made under the current legal framework: that the prospective adopters apply to, and are assessed by, an adoption agency in the UK; that while going through the assessment process the prospective adopters provide as much information as requested by the agency; that the prospective adopters agree to the carrying out of police and medical checks; that the case is referred to an adoption panel; that the home study assessment and such other information as is required by the overseas authority is sent to the central authority—the Department of Health in England and the National Assembly for Wales—so that it can be checked that the proper procedures were followed and all the relevant information collected before a certificate of eligibility is issued on behalf of the Secretary of State and sent to the relevant overseas authority; and that within 14 days of arrival in the UK with a child that they intend to adopt, notice of an intention to adopt is given to the local authority in whose area the prospective adopters reside.
	The effect of those provisions is that the prospective adopters must first be assessed and approved as suitable to adopt in the UK before adopting overseas. If they do not do that, they are guilty of an offence. We will, of course, consult on draft regulations and guidance that set out the requirements that must be met prior to bringing them into force.
	Clause 81 also increases the penalties for those found guilty of breaching the restrictions on bringing, or causing to bring, a child into the country. At present, the maximum penalty on conviction is three months' imprisonment or a fine of £5,000, or both. We have strengthened that so that there is a maximum penalty in a magistrates court of six months' imprisonment and/or a fine of £5,000, and the possibility of an even higher penalty if the magistrates court refers the case to a Crown court, or if the defendant enters a plea of not guilty and elects for a Crown court trial. In such cases, the maximum penalty will be 12 months' imprisonment or an unlimited fine, or both.
	Finally, clause 81 allows us to apply with modifications and disapply the provisions in chapter 3 on inter-country adoption cases. It is our intention to modify the provisions to provide that, where the proper procedures have been followed, children brought to the UK for adoption spend at least six months living with their prospective adopters prior to an application being made for an adoption order, and at least 12 months where they have not. We also intend to ensure that children adopted from overseas are able to obtain access to information that the agency holds about them, although the exact nature of such information will vary depending upon the procedures in the child's state of origin. Clause 121 makes similar provision for Scotland to that made by clause 81 in respect of England and Wales.
	Clause 84 allows us to put in place arrangements for the recognition in England and Wales of adoption orders made overseas. It permits the Secretary of State to make an order specifying the adoption orders to be included. The clause also allows the Secretary of State to make regulations setting out the criteria that an overseas country's procedures must meet in order for the country to be included in the list of countries whose adoptions are recognised—sometimes known as the designated list.
	The current designated list was created in an order made in 1973. It was amended in 1993 to add China, but other than that it has remained unchanged. It has always been our stated intention to review the designated list. However, that is not possible without changes to primary legislation, as the removal of a country from the list would automatically remove recognition of adoptions made before the review, which would undermine the status of children and adults adopted in the past from countries included on the list. Clause 122 makes similar provision for Scotland to that made in clause 84 in respect of England and Wales.
	Government amendments Nos. 59 and 60 seek to clarify the definition of the word "parent", as referred to in clause 81, in relation to overseas adoption. The policy intention is for the restrictions provided for by clause 81 not to apply where the adopter or prospective adopter is a natural parent of the child. Those amendments respond to concerns expressed by stakeholders that the term "parent" includes an adoptive parent, and therefore that the provision in clause 81(1)(b), which imposes the restrictions that I explained, is nullified by subsection (2), which provides that those restrictions do not apply to a parent of the child.

Julian Brazier: I am most grateful to the hon. Lady for giving way so early in her speech. Hon. Members understand the point that she is making, but will she explain why she feels it necessary to use the word "natural", rather than "genetic"? The term "natural parent" suggests that birth parents are the only parents who are natural. Surely adoptive parents would be natural. Why not use a more narrowly defined word, such as "genetic"?

Jacqui Smith: We understand from our discussions on the Bill that there are a lot of sensitivities about the nature of birth parents and their relationship with the child and the nature of adopters. It is generally recognised, however, that the use of the phrase "natural parent" conveys what is necessary. I suspect that we will continue to discuss some of the sensitivities involved in the use of such terms.
	In response to those concerns, and following further consideration of the wording of clause 81, we seek to make amendments Nos. 59 and 60 to clarify the meaning of the word "parent".
	Amendment No. 61 will provide a power to impose functions on a local authority where notice of intention to adopt has been given to the authority in respect of a child brought into the United Kingdom under clause 81(1)(a). The amendment will ensure that the maximum possible protection is conferred on children brought into the United Kingdom for the purposes of adoption. Where subsection (1)(a) applies, a person who brings a child into the United Kingdom for the purposes of adoption will be required to give a local authority notice of his or her intention to adopt within 14 days of returning to the United Kingdom.
	In such a case, the intention is to impose specific functions on local authorities by regulation, following full consultation. The regulations are likely to require a local authority to visit the child, to inspect premises, to require specified information in respect of the child and prospective adopters and to monitor the child. In summary, amendment No. 61 will afford the maximum protection to be conferred on a child brought into the country for the purposes of adoption.
	Amendment No. 27 is similar to amendments Nos. 59 and 60. It will ensure that the Scottish restrictions in clause 121—on bringing a child who is not habitually resident in the British isles into the United Kingdom—do not apply to a natural parent or relative.
	I shall now deal with the amendments—in particular, amendment No. 29—that we have tabled to the defence provisions. We tabled the amendments to ensure that the clauses comply with the way in which the courts are now interpreting defences in the light of article 6 of the European convention on human rights, which states:
	"Everyone charged with a criminal offence shall be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law."
	As several amendments follow the same principle, I am sure that hon. Members are paying close attention. 3.45 pm
	The amendments change the legal burden in the defence provisions to an evidential burden to comply with recent court judgments. When a person is charged with an offence in contravention of a clause that provided a defence, he will not have to prove the matter set out in that defence on the balance of probabilities. The change means that if there is sufficient evidence that a defence provision may apply to the case before the court, it will be for the prosecution to prove beyond reasonable doubt that it does not. We consider that to be the appropriate balance in the light of convention case law.
	To counterbalance that change in the burden of evidence, the amendments also amend the formulation of "did not know or have reasonable cause to believe" currently in the Bill, to "did not know, and had no reason to suspect", which provides a higher test. Amendment No. 29 applies to the offence of arranging the removal of a child from the United Kingdom for the purpose of adoption, in contravention of clause 83, and I have explained the principles behind that.
	Amendments Nos. 298 and 299 substantially amend clause 84. In Committee, I set out our plans to bring into force some of the Bill's provisions before full implementation. As part of the early work, we intend to begin the process of reviewing the designated list, but we want to do so in light of the regulations that will prescribe the requirements. The review will involve bilateral discussions with countries to decide which ones should be included in the list on the basis that their adoptions are likely to meet the requirements set out in regulations. Having completed the review, the Secretary of State may make an order that adoptions made in those countries from the date that the order is made are to be overseas adoptions for the purposes of the 1976 Act and the Bill, which means that they will be recognised in the UK. As it stands, we cannot begin the review against those prescribed requirements before the commencement of the Bill as a whole, and we are keen to get on with it.
	I stated in Committee that I would table an amendment on Report to allow us to set in place the new arrangements in 2003, should we be in a position to do so. The revised clause 84 will enable the review to begin in advance of the commencement of the Bill as a whole. However, the review of the designated list is likely to be a time-consuming process and we will not be able to complete it in respect of some countries by the time it comes fully into force. So the amendments to clause 84 also provide the necessary flexibility to continue to recognise adoptions from those countries currently on the designated list that have not yet been reviewed.
	Amendment No. 298 largely replaces what is now clause 84. Amended subsection (1) re-defines overseas adoption for the purposes of the Bill and the 1976 Act. Subsection (2) enables the Secretary of State to make regulations prescribing the requirements that should be met by an adoption that is made after the commencement of the regulations for it to be an overseas adoption. Those are likely to be: that the law in the overseas country ensures that the child has been freely given up for adoption and that that has not been induced by payment or compensation of any kind; that the overseas country makes attempts to place the child in a family in their own country; that it confirms that inter-country adoption is in the child's best interests; that the domestic and inter- country adoption arrangements and requirements are the same; and that profit is not made from the process.
	Those are the main requirements in the amendments on the inter-country provisions. The key consideration is that the Bill already significantly strengthens and clarifies the position on inter-country adoption. Its additional restrictions and tougher penalties will protect vulnerable children overseas by acting as a deterrent to those who do not want to go through the proper assessment and approval procedures. It should also help us to ensure that a consistent service is provided to those who wish to adopt overseas, and that they are helped to navigate the often complex procedures. The amendments will provide for the Bill to go even further to strengthen the safeguards and procedures for children who are adopted overseas, and I commend them to the House.

Julian Brazier: I shall focus mostly on Government amendments Nos. 61 and 298, although I want to press the Minister for a moment on the point that I made in an intervention in relation to Government amendments Nos. 59, 60 and 27.
	Terminology is of some significance. To many adoptive parents, it seems sad to hear the genetic parents of the children concerned, many of whom have been most unnatural in their treatment of their children, referred to as "natural parents", as if adopting were somehow unnatural. Why cannot the much more usual terminology of "birth parents" be used, or a more technical term such as "genetic parents"? That is not clear to me.

Sandra Gidley: I have some sympathy with the use of the term "birth parents". Would the hon. Gentleman agree, however, that the term "genetic parents" can cause problems, as genetics do not always bear out—in probably 20 per cent. of cases, I understand—what a child believes to be truly his or her parentage?

Julian Brazier: The hon. Lady is taking us into a terminological minefield. Perhaps she and I can agree on the most commonly used phrase: "birth parents". We do not want to spend too much time on the terminology, but the fact is that many adoptive parents resent the idea that it should be suggested in law that their relationship with the children concerned—the adoption of whom has often involved them making huge sacrifices—is somehow unnatural.
	In relation to Government amendment No. 61, it is worth making a few background points on clause 81. The United Kingdom still has a bolt-on inter-country service, both currently and even after the introduction of this Bill, rather than, as is the case in many other signatories to the convention, a system that is specially designed to deal with overseas adoptions. The amendment takes a small step in the right direction of putting Britain into the mainstream of convention-signing countries that receive children for adoption. Adopters will now have to notify their local authority about their new child's arrival. That should mean that the local authority is then obliged to make welfare visits: alas, these are all too frequently not done because of the pressures on social services staff.
	The provision will help a little with the difficulty that adopters have in trying to get recognition of the probity of inter-country adoption within their local authorities, but, sadly, it probably does not go far enough, and certainly not as far as was envisaged by the Adoption (Intercountry Aspects) Act 1999. There is, indeed, a question. The 1999 Act envisaged that any adoption of a child into the UK should be treated as though it were an agency adoption. That ensures that local authorities oversee the assessment of adopters and review the child's progress once the child comes into the UK, and that the rest of the protective measures apply. Given that this Government amendment is, effectively, less strong than the 1999 provisions, what happens to those provisions? They have not yet been put into operation, so are they simply to disappear?
	The Minister referred to the importance of helping overseas adopters, as we do other adopters. They battle with paperwork and practicalities here and in the sending country almost alone. There is no specialist agency of any kind to help them here. When the British adoptive family have returned to the UK with the child, they have hitherto received very little assistance from most local authorities. Sometimes, there has been monitoring of the early days of the adoption, but, mostly, work pressures in local authorities have prevented even that.
	It is worth noting that very few overseas adoptions have broken down over the years. The one group that has been thoroughly researched is the 500 or so children who came from Romania in 1991 and 1992. About 20 of those 500 adoptions have broken down—that is only 4 per cent., which is an extraordinarily low figure and much lower than the rate for domestic adoptions. It is particularly remarkable, given the horrendous conditions—we all saw the pictures on television—from which the children came.

Jonathan R Shaw: Can the hon. Gentleman tell the House the average age of the children who came from Romania? Children from the UK who are adopted tend to be older and, therefore, have more problems.

Julian Brazier: I cannot give the hon. Gentleman a direct answer, but I believe that the children from Romania came from across the age spectrum. They were certainly not all babies, which seems to be the point behind his question.
	Before I move away from the subject of Romania, it is worth putting on record the anger that many adopters feel about the activities of Baroness Nicholson. She was sent to Romania by the European Parliament to consider the position there, and in her report on adoption in Romania she makes an attack that appears to be corroborated by very little evidence. The suggestion that children were being sold from Romania so frightened the authorities there that overseas adoption from that country to this country has stopped completely, thus denying many children the opportunity of a loving family to adopt them.
	The fact that such a high proportion of overseas adoptions succeed is a towering achievement and testimony to the intense commitment of overseas adopters. Surely help should be available to them. It is well known that early intervention with a problem is usually productive and often saves the relationship. The amendment should help a little, because social workers will have a duty to monitor families just as they do with domestic adoptions. I hope that the barrage of quality protects indicators—it seems to get larger every year—will be followed up and delivered despite the extreme overstretch that many local authorities, including mine, have experienced.
	Government amendment No. 298 will amend clause 84 and it is clearly designed to deal with cases such as that involving the Kilshaws. As the Minister said, it will close the current loophole that allowed the Kilshaws to get round having a local authority pre-adoption vetting. They used a private home study that went directly to a US-based agency, which then allowed the adoption. A number of such adoptions have taken place each year. I am not attacking the Kilshaws under parliamentary privilege—enough has already been said about that case—but there is a danger that those with genuinely sinister motives, such as paedophiles, might take advantage of the loophole. Therefore, it is right to close it and to bring the rules for UK adoptions from the US into line with those for other countries. However, in the Kilshaw case, it must be pointed out that the American and British laws together finally delivered a satisfactory result.
	The Kilshaw case resulted in much animus against American adoption agencies. However, although the state of adoption law in some American states is not very good, it is better in many states than it is in this country. Furthermore, many couples in this country make up for the complete absence of proper independent advice in this country about overseas adoption by approaching an American agency. Very often, American agencies can assist British couples in adopting children from countries outside America and Britain.
	Taken as a whole, the amendments make a number of sensible changes to improve the administration of overseas adoption. We are minded to support them, but we still feel that there should be a little more carrot—a little more positive assistance for people who bring children into this country, often from the most appalling conditions, and give them a loving home.

Vincent Cable: When the Minister sums up the debate, will she tell us her assessment of the Bill's likely effect on the volume of inter-country adoption? Will there be significantly more of it or significantly less, or will the level remain about the same?
	I have no professional interest in adoption, whether overseas or domestic, and I have no personal experience of it. However, I have dealt with the casework of constituents who have attempted overseas adoption, and they have found the procedures in this country amazingly negative and labyrinthine. First, they go to the local council's social services department, where they find that social workers are unremittingly hostile because they seem to feel that there is something not quite correct about adopting children from another culture. They fear, often completely wrongly, that they may be stolen or that there may be profit involved. Cases may go, on appeal, to the Department of Health. I was involved in one such case, and found that there was hostility there too. If the case gets through that hurdle, it has to go through immigration control, where such adoptions are viewed very negatively, as a loophole in immigration regulations.
	There is not only anecdotal evidence of that approach; there is evidence of it in the number of such adoptions. We seem to have one of the most restrictive regimes for inter-country adoptions in the western world. I understand that there are about 300 applications a year, fewer than the number of inter-country adoptions in small countries such as Norway and about a tenth of the number in France. There may be technical reasons for that, but in the absence of any evidence to the contrary, I assume that it is the result of our extremely restrictive philosophy.
	Most of the Minister's introduction was about strengthening restrictions and tightening controls. She said nothing to imply that there was anything worth while about inter-country adoption. However, in many cases it may be a very desirable activity. There are people who are genuinely humanitarian and who wish to give children a home, and if one of the partners has a link overseas, inter-country adoption may be a perfectly natural thing to do. I would hope that the Minister would be a little more positive about the spirit behind such adoptions.
	I sense that my sentiments are echoed by many of the countries with which we deal. For example, India and Colombia, which have developed sophisticated domestic monitoring systems to prevent abuse and profiteering, have found this country absolutely impossible to deal with because our philosophy is so negative. South American countries such as Peru have followed the same route. This country is clearly sending out the message that it does not want inter-country adoption, so it makes it as difficult as possible for parents to pursue that course. I hope that the Minister will make her approach clear.
	I listened to some of the debates that took place last week. The philosophy behind much of the Government's thinking, on unmarried couples for example, is that it is better to have an imperfect relationship than to leave a child in an orphanage, and surely that is even more the case here. There are many children in dire circumstances who would benefit from adoption. If the right procedures and proper protections are in place, why cannot overseas adoption be not merely tolerated but actively encouraged?

Laura Moffatt: Will the hon. Gentleman please explain to the House what an imperfect relationship is?

Vincent Cable: I do not want to reopen the debate that we had last week. I happily supported the principle of giving unmarried couples the right to adopt. The Government seemed to say—I fully supported them—that it was often better for unmarried couples rather than married couples to adopt because that widened the pool of adoption and brought more people into play. I am simply asking them to follow through the same logic in relation to the very specific problem that we are considering.

David Hinchliffe: I did not intend to speak in the debate on this amendment, but I am stimulated by contributions from the Conservative Front Bench and the hon. Member for Twickenham (Dr. Cable).
	I have grave doubts in principle about overseas adoptions. Last week, I mentioned the circumstances that I witnessed in Romania. I know nothing about Baroness Nicholson's report, which I have not read, but I share her concern about procedures for removing very poor children from Romania. I believe strongly that our contribution in such circumstances should be to try to work with the authorities and the children and their families to ensure that poverty and deprivation are addressed in their own country.
	I mentioned my visit 10 years ago to a nursery in Romania containing 100 children below the age of five. I remember the children climbing all over me while I stood. On starting in child care work, I found that when somebody goes into a children's home, children who do not know them climb on to them for love and for the sake of touching somebody. My experience in Romania was the same. The nursery was supposedly an orphanage, but, as I said last week, when I asked the woman in charge how many of the children were without families, she told me that only one out of 100 was an orphan. The rest had families, mothers, fathers, brothers and sisters who loved them dearly, but could not afford to bring them up.
	I passionately believe that we need to tread carefully in relation to overseas adoptions. I would welcome an assurance from the Minister that we will consider how this country might assist in protecting youngsters in countries such as Romania who are removed from their families. It can happen for what might seem the very best of reasons. Indeed, I and one or two other members of the Select Committee on Health had contact with a previous scheme in which poor children were removed from this country to the other side of the world for the very best of reasons. When they came back, a number of them asked, "Why did you do it, Britain?"
	Would we honestly argue that children in this country who are in poverty and are deprived and living in very difficult circumstances should be sent overseas and adopted there because we cannot look after them and support their families? I do not think so. I hope that we will tread very carefully in dealing with these matters.

Elfyn Llwyd: Broadly speaking, I fully support the amendments, which are a useful step forward.
	Mention has been made of the Kilshaw case. I am not here to use parliamentary privilege in an unfair way either, but I point out that the case highlighted numerous problems that are addressed by the amendments, which are most welcome. Many criticisms are made of social services. It is obvious that they are under a great deal of pressure, but the Flintshire social services moved rapidly indeed in that case and deserve credit for what they did. Equally, the Government have listened to the evidence taken in the Special Standing Committee. The amendments are welcome and the Bill is far better now than a few months ago.
	The hon. Members for Wakefield (Mr. Hinchliffe) and for Canterbury (Mr. Brazier) referred to youngsters in Romania. I visited Belarus not so long ago and saw similar circumstances in which children were seemingly being offered to all and sundry, which is completely unacceptable. The comments made by the hon. Member for Wakefield were absolutely right: we need better liaison between UK authorities and those in other countries.
	The memorandum submitted by the Adoption Forum to the Special Standing Committee states, among other things:
	"There is no provision for help or advice beyond the home study. Prospective adopters will still be on their own battling with the bureaucracies of two countries—their own and the country of origin of the child."
	Here is the crunch:
	"How are people to find reliable contacts and agencies abroad when there is so little official help on offer?"—[Official Report, Special Standing Committee, 21 November 2001; c. 171.]
	I fully support the contention of the hon. Member for Wakefield that we need to make it possible for these countries to address their problems rather than offer their children for adoption. Will the Minister consider this point, however, in the cases where adoption is a viable alternative—perhaps the viable alternative? This argument was put to various bodies during the evidence taking, and, as far as I can see from the Bill, we have not progressed much further since then. I am not levelling criticism unfairly or casually; many of the amendments have plugged the gap that existed, and they are welcome. I would, however, like the Minister to address the small point that I have just raised. Apart from that, I am very pleased to support the amendments.

Jacqui Smith: We have had a short but useful debate, in which different views have been expressed on whether the Government should further restrict inter-country adoption or take an even more positive approach to it. This partly represents the sensitivity and the concerns of people engaged in such adoption; it also reflects a failure to understand some of the progress that is being made in the Bill.
	To return to the point pressed by the hon. Member for Canterbury (Mr. Brazier) about the use of the word "natural", I am not sure that I am going to be able to satisfy him today, so to speak. The Government considered other terms, but they were all seen to have problems attached to their use, some of which have been mentioned today. Perhaps I could write to him about why "natural" is the most appropriate term.
	Several hon. Members have understandably mentioned the Kilshaw case in relation to safeguards. I note the presence in the Chamber of my hon. Friend the Member for Delyn (Mr. Hanson); he was, of course, the Kilshaws' constituency MP. I understand that he supports the views of the hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy (Mr. Llwyd) about the important contribution made by Flintshire social services, and about the importance of ensuring—as we are doing in the Bill—that significant changes are made to protect children from the kind of events that we saw in the Kilshaw case. This will be assisted by the Government's decision to restrict the bringing into the country of children adopted in other countries within the last six months. As I suggested in my introduction, that is quite an important loophole that the Bill will enable us to close.
	Several hon. Members have mentioned the need for more support for those engaged in inter-country adoption. The hon. Member for Canterbury talked about the need for inter-country adoption agencies. I believe that some agencies already concentrate on inter-country work, and it is also possible for inter-country adoption agencies to be set up under the Bill. I would say to the hon. Member for Twickenham (Dr. Cable) that it is not the intention of the Bill either artificially to increase or artificially to hold back the number of inter-country adoptions. It is not clear whether the number will increase, although it has risen steadily over the last couple of years. The Bill will, however, improve the quality of procedures for those wanting to adopt from overseas. I do not agree with the hon. Member for Twickenham that there is hostility in the system to inter-country adoption. I shall outline some of the action already taken by the Government.
	We have introduced the provisions in the Adoption (Intercountry Aspects) Act 1999 that place a clear duty on local authorities to establish an inter-country adoption service. Those adopting from abroad are already eligible under provisions relating to adoption support, which we have debated at some length. However, procedures are necessarily tight in order to protect and safeguard children. Given the concerns that hon. Members have expressed and what we know about some cases, it is important that those safeguards are in place.
	We have fewer inter-country adoptions than some other countries, but we have 10 times the number of domestic adoptions than in Norway, for example. There is an important cultural issue to be considered. In many countries, there is nothing like the emphasis—if any emphasis at all—on the adoption of children out of care that there is in this country. Hon. Members will recognise that it is a very important priority for the Government not only to maintain but to increase the ability to adopt out of care. That is quite often the reason for discrepancies in adoption figures among countries. In addition, The Hague convention, against which I have not heard any hon. Member argue, requires that we tighten controls in order to proceed with our ratification.
	Prospective adopters have the support both of their agencies and of the Department of Health's adoption unit in finding out the information that they need to help them adopt children from overseas. I do not quite understand the accusation made by the hon. Member for Twickenham that, somehow, Government officials are attempting to make life more difficult for those who want to adopt from overseas. I have evidence of people thanking officials in my Department for the assistance that they have been given on inter-country adoption.
	The hon. Member for Canterbury suggested that the provisions in the Bill were weaker than the 1999 measures. In fact, clauses 81 and 84 are tighter in the sense that the Secretary of State will have to prescribe the requirements that ought to be met by local authorities in discharging their responsibilities to those adopting from overseas. Without that provision, the Secretary of State would not have any criteria to work to and would therefore be more likely to be challenged.
	We recognise that a balance needs to be struck between enabling parents who have a genuine wish to adopt and a contribution to make in adopting a child from overseas, and the very important need to ensure that our legislation protects children not only in this country but overseas. As we have made clear throughout proceedings on this Bill, whether we are considering domestic or inter-country adoption, we must ensure that the needs of the children are at the centre of policies. I commend the Government's amendments to the House.
	Amendment agreed to.
	It being forty-five minutes after the commencement of proceedings on consideration of the Bill, Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Order [16 May], put forthwith the Questions necessary for the disposal of business to be concluded at that hour.
	Amendments made: No. 60, in page 44, line 22, at beginning insert "natural".
	No. 61, in page 44, line 42, at end insert—
	'(b) if notice of intention to adopt has been given, impose functions in respect of the child on the local authority to which the notice was given'.—[Jacqui Smith.]

Clause 83
	 — 
	Restriction on taking children out

Amendment made: No. 29, in page 46, line 21, leave out subsection (5) and insert—
	'( ) A person is not guilty of an offence under subsection (4) of causing a person to take any step mentioned in paragraph (a) or (b) of subsection (3) unless it is proved that he knew or had reason to suspect that the step taken would contravene subsection (1).
	But this subsection only applies if sufficient evidence is adduced to raise an issue as to whether the person had the knowledge or reason mentioned'.—[Jacqui Smith.]

Clause 84
	 — 
	Overseas adoptions

Amendments made: No. 298, in page 46, line 40, leave out from "adoption"" to end of line 10 on page 47 and insert "—
	(a) means an adoption of a description specified in an order made by the Secretary of State, being a description of adoptions effected under the law of any country or territory outside the British Islands, but
	(b) does not include a Convention adoption.
	(2) Regulations may prescribe the requirements that ought to be met by an adoption of any description effected after the commencement of the regulations for it to be an overseas adoption for the purposes of this Act.
	(3) At any time when such regulations have effect, the Secretary of State must exercise his powers under this section so as to secure that subsequently effected adoptions of any description are not overseas adoptions for the purposes of this Act if he considers that they are not likely within a reasonable time to meet the prescribed requirements.
	(3A) In this section references to this Act include the Adoption Act 1976.'.
	No. 299, in page 47, line 12, at end insert—
	'( ) In this section—
	"adoption" means an adoption of a child or of a person who was a child at the time the adoption was applied for,
	"regulations" means regulations made by the Secretary of State after consultation with the Assembly.'.—[Jacqui Smith.]

Clause 87
	 — 
	Section 86: supplementary

Amendment made: No. 255, in page 48, line 14, at end insert—
	' "Prescribed" means prescribed by rules.'.—[Jacqui Smith.]

Clause 88
	 — 
	Overseas determinations and orders

Amendment made: No. 38, in page 48, line 28, leave out "colony" and insert "British overseas territory".—[Jacqui Smith.]

Clause 121
	 — 
	Scottish restriction on bringing children into United Kingdom

Amendments made: No. 27, in page 69, line 6, leave out "parents," and insert—
	'natural parents (whether or not they have parental responsibilities or parental rights in relation to the child), natural'.
	No. 28, in page 69, line 24, at end insert—
	'( ) In relation to a child brought into the United Kingdom for adoption in circumstances where this section applies, regulations may provide for any provision of Part II of this Act to apply with modifications or not to apply.'—[Jacqui Smith.]

Clause 122
	 — 
	Amendment of Adoption (Scotland) Act 1978: overseas adoptions

Amendments made: No. 305, in page 70, line 1, leave out from first "adoption" " to end of line 11 and insert "—
	(a) means an adoption of a description specified in an order made by the Scottish Ministers, being a description of adoptions effected under the law of any country or territory outside the British Islands, but
	(b) does not include a Convention adoption.
	(2A) The Scottish Ministers may by regulations prescribe the requirements that ought to be met by an adoption of any description effected after the commencement of the regulations for it to be an overseas adoption for the purposes of this Act.
	(2B) At any time when such regulations have effect, the Scottish Ministers must exercise their power under subsection (2) so as to secure that subsequently effected adoptions of any description are not overseas adoptions for the purposes of this Act if they consider that such adoptions are not likely within a reasonable time to meet the prescribed requirements.'.
	No. 306, in page 70,, leave out lines 14 to 19 and insert—
	'(2D) In subsections (2) to (2C), "adoption" means the adoption of a child or of a person who was a child at the time the adoption was applied for.'.—[Jacqui Smith.]

Clause 125
	 — 
	Extension of the Convention to British Overseas Territories

Amendment made: No. 39, in page 71, line 6, leave out subsection (3) and insert—
	'( ) The British Nationality Act 1981 is amended as follows.
	( ) In section 1 (acquisition of British citizenship by birth or adoption)—
	(a) in subsection (5), at the end of paragraph (b) there is inserted "effected under the law of a country or territory outside the United Kingdom",
	(b) at the end of subsection (5A)(b) there is inserted "or in a designated territory",
	(c) in subsection (8), the words following "section 50" are omitted.
	( ) In section 15 (acquisition of British overseas territories citizenship)—
	(a) after subsection (5) there is inserted—
	"(5A) Where—
	(a) a minor who is not a British overseas territories citizen is adopted under a Convention adoption,
	(b) on the date on which the adoption is effected—
	(i) the adopter or, in the case of a joint adoption, one of the adopters is a British overseas territories citizen, and
	(ii) the adopter or, in the case of a joint adoption, both of the adopters are habitually resident in a designated territory, and
	(c) the Convention adoption is effected under the law of a country or territory outside the designated territory,
	the minor shall be a British overseas territories citizen as from that date.",
	(b) in subsection (6), after "order" there is inserted "or a Convention adoption".
	( ) In section 50 (interpretation), in subsection (1)—
	(a) after the definition of "company" there is inserted—
	"'Convention adoption'" means an adoption effected under the law of a country or territory in which the Convention is in force, and certified in pursuance of Article 23(1) of the Convention",
	(b) after the definition of "'Crown service under the government of the United Kingdom'" there is inserted—
	"designated territory" means a qualifying territory, or the Sovereign Base Areas of Akrotiri and Dhekelia, which is designated by Her Majesty by Order in Council under subsection (14)".
	( ) After subsection (13) of that section there is inserted—
	"(14) For the purposes of the definition of "designated territory" in subsection (1), an Order in Council may—
	(a) designate any qualifying territory, or the Sovereign Base Areas of Akrotiri and Dhekelia, if the Convention is in force there, and
	(b) make different designations for the purposes of section 1 and section 15;
	and, for the purposes of this subsection and the definition of "Convention adoption" in subsection (1), "the Convention" means the Convention on the Protection of Children and Co-operation in respect of Intercountry Adoption, concluded at the Hague on 29th May 1993.
	An Order in Council under this subsection shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament".'.—[Jacqui Smith.]

New Clause 14
	 — 
	Proceedings in Great Britain

'Proceedings for an offence by virtue of section 9, 57, 90, 91, 92 or 119—
	(a) may not be brought more than six years after the commission of the offence but, subject to that,
	(b) may be brought within a period of six months from the date on which evidence sufficient in the opinion of the prosecutor to warrant the proceedings came to his knowledge.
	In relation to Scotland, "the prosecutor" is to be read as "the procurator fiscal".'.—[Jacqui Smith.]
	Brought up, and read the First time.

Jacqui Smith: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Mr. Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following: Government amendments Nos. 30, 31, 233, 62, 63, 32, 144 and 145.
	Amendment No. 130, in clause 128, page 72, line 13, leave out from "that" to end of line 14 and insert—
	'the person may attend and be heard.'.
	Government amendment No. 226.
	Amendment No. 131, in page 72, line 32, leave out from "and" to "at" in line 33 and insert—
	'who has not given notice under subsection (4) of that section.'.
	Government amendments Nos. 235 to 237.

Jacqui Smith: The amendments deal with offences and proceedings relating to adoption, and new clause 14 has its roots in the scrutiny by the Special Standing Committee. Clause 95(2)(a) sets a three-year time limit for bringing proceedings for all offences under the Bill. The net effect of that is to extend the time limit for summary only offences from the standard six months to three years, and to place a three-year time limit on the either-way offences, which are not normally time limited.
	Members of the Special Standing Committee will recall that concerns were expressed about the three-year time limit. Offenders could escape prosecution, it was suggested, if the offence came to the attention of the authorities more than three years after it was committed. Under the operation of the current three-year inspection cycle, inspectors could discover too late that an offence had been committed immediately after their last inspection. Members of the Committee also suggested that unlawful activities might not come to light until several years after the offences were committed.
	As we undertook to do, we have examined those concerns and we agree that issues need to be addressed by amendment. We considered when each offence would be likely to come to the attention of the authorities. In that context, we concluded that the Bill deals with three groups of offences, each of which we intend to provide for differently.
	The first group comprises offences under clauses 81 and 83, relating to issues involving inter-country adoption, which we have just discussed. Each contains an either- way offence triable before a magistrates court or a Crown court, which provides for a higher penalty than the Bill's summary only offences. As there would have to be exceptional reasons for placing a time limit on an either-way offence, we shall remove the current time limit on the two either-way offences.
	In the second group, all the other offences are summary only and may be tried only in a magistrates court. We are removing the time limit from most of those—in a moment I shall explain which summary offences will be treated differently—as we would expect the adoption agency or prosecuting authority to receive information or notice soon after the offence was committed.
	Such offences are linked to activities in which the agency is involved, and it should soon learn of an offence or expect to be informed by others involved—for example, where the court orders the prospective adopters to return the child to the agency or the birth parents remove the child from the prospective adopters without the leave of the court. Therefore, we shall remove the three-year time limit, allowing the standard six-month time limit for most summary only offences to apply automatically.
	To reiterate, those are offences that we would expect to be discovered within that six-month time limit. However, as members of the Committee pointed out, some may go unnoticed by the adoption agency or other authorities where an agency is not involved in making arrangements for an adoption. In the bipartisan spirit in which we are considering the legislation, although that will not happen often, I have to say that it was the hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton) who raised the issue in Committee. Moreover, the agency may itself commit an offence soon after an inspection visit, and that may not be discovered until three years later when the next visit takes place.
	We considered extending the time limit to four years to provide for the three-year inspection cycle, but we were concerned that cases in which, for example, arrangements are made for the private adoption of a baby or an infant, or even of an unborn child, might be missed. The offence could be concealed, perhaps until the child needed to enter primary school. The new clause therefore sets a new time limit of six years for bringing proceedings for offences under clauses 9, 57, 90, 91, 92, and 119.
	We think that that will provide sufficient scope to bring prosecutions against those who arrange private adoptions. The prosecuting authorities will be able to decide that if no harm has come to the child, it is not in the public interest to prosecute the parents. However, the longer time limit provides sufficient scope for the authorities to bring prosecutions against those who arranged or facilitated that private adoption. That is why we decided to set a time of six years.
	The new clause extends to Scotland as well as to England and Wales, as it imposes a time limit in respect of clause 119 that extends to Scotland.
	Government amendments Nos. 30, 31 and 32 relate to my earlier arguments about the series of amendments that change the legal burden in the defence provisions to an evidential burden to comply with recent court judgments on that point. I know that hon. Members were listening carefully when I outlined the reasons for that. To counterbalance the change in the burden of evidence, the amendments also amend the formulation used in the clause—that someone
	"neither knew nor had reasonable cause to believe"—
	to the question of whether they
	"knew or had reason to suspect",
	which provides a higher test.
	Government amendments Nos. 144 and 145 will ensure that only an evidential burden is placed on the defendant, and that clause 115(3) is compatible with article 6 of the European convention on human rights. They also align the clauses with the defences for electronic distribution of advertisements in the Tobacco Advertising and Promotion Bill.
	I now turn to Government amendments Nos. 62 and 63. When clause 97, which was then clause 96, was considered in Committee on 4 December, we—I am using the royal we, because I was not present on that day—agreed to consider the drafting of the clause. The Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department, my hon. Friend the Member for Doncaster, Central (Ms Winterton), set out the following areas for examination: first, whether there should be an automatic bar on the identification of children in the county court and the High Court to match that already in place in the magistrates court; secondly, whether county courts should have the ability to revert to open court in individual cases; and thirdly, whether to tighten the wording of the clause to ensure the anonymity of those involved in adoption proceedings.
	Amendment No. 62 deals with the second of those points. The Government have considered whether county courts should have the ability to sit in open court in individual cases, and we believe that it is important that the family courts have sufficient flexibility to carry out their duties without unnecessary bureaucracy and without causing unnecessary delay. It would be undesirable for a case that is being dealt with at an otherwise suitable court centre to be transferred to the High Court solely to allow judgment that does not even identify the child concerned to be given in public. Amendment No. 62 gives county court judges the discretion to hear adoption proceedings in public when they consider it appropriate to do so—for example, where it is in the child's best interests or in the public interest.
	Through amendment No. 62 we are modernising and clarifying the language used in the Bill by substituting for the phrases "in chambers" and "in camera" the phrase "in private". That clarifies the policy intention by ensuring that only those concerned with the case are present and that the public are not admitted. Recent case law has again stressed that "in chambers" is not the same as "in private", so non-parties could seek to enter a hearing in chambers. The amendment updates the clause with the more modern terminology of
	"heard and determined in private",
	which provides consistency with the language used in the rest of the statute book.
	On the first point raised in Committee, the Government have considered the issue of the identification of children involved in adoption proceedings, and we believe that there should be an automatic bar on the identification of children in the county court and the High Court to match that already in place in the magistrates court. Amendment No. 63 therefore inserts in the Children Act 1989 a reference to the Bill, to align the protection of children under that Act and the Bill.
	That will ensure that children are protected at all levels of courts by making it an offence to publish any material that is intended to identify, or likely to identify, first, any child as being involved in any proceedings before the courts in which any power under the Bill may be exercised by the court with respect to that or to any other child or, secondly, an address or school as being that of a child involved in any such proceedings.
	I believe that the amendments have fulfilled the commitment that my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department made in Committee to consider the points that arose, and I hope that in the light of that explanation, hon. Members will support the new clause.

Tim Loughton: I acknowledge the Minister's characteristic graciousness in alluding to the useful debate in Committee. Practical and useful points were made there, and in the interests of bipartisanship, I must acknowledge that the Government have generally taken them on board. However, I fear that that will make for a boring debate this afternoon, as is witnessed by the lack of hon. Members in the Chamber.
	I broadly welcome the amendments. I am especially pleased about new clause 14 and the consequential amendments that change the basis of the six-month and three-year restrictions that currently apply. We had a good debate in Committee about offences that are often undetected for a long time and hidden by those who are clever at getting around the law. There are shortcomings in part of the inspection system, but the work of the National Care Standards Commission will improve matters in future. Some agencies are inspected on a three-year cycle and the prosecution period is limited to three years, whereas it may take a long time after inspections for some matters to come out of the woodwork. The measure is therefore wholly sensible, and we welcome it.
	We welcome the application of the new clause to the more serious case of private adoptions. Like private fostering, those are an unknown quantity. We know that some cases have sprung from lack of proper checks, which is understandable because the private adoptions and fostering have not been officially recognised.
	Government amendments Nos. 30, 31 and 32 deal with the change to the evidential basis for the burden of proof, which echoes recent arguments in Committee on the Tobacco Advertising and Promotion Bill. The Minister has not had the pleasure of being party to those debates, but I have, as I try to juggle those responsibilities with my others in connection with this Bill.
	The amendments are consistent with those that we considered to the Tobacco Advertising and Promotion Bill. However, it always pains me when I read phrases such as:
	"only applies if sufficient evidence is adduced to raise an issue as to whether the person had the knowledge or reason mentioned".
	I fear that plain English has not prevailed.

Rosie Winterton: I did not say that.

Tim Loughton: The Minister says that she did not say that, but that is the wording of her amendment. I fully realise that it is legalistic jargon, but such terrible English pains me, and it seems to be used all the time nowadays.
	Amendments Nos. 62 and 63 refer to the change to proceedings in court. Amendment No. 63 refers to the Administration of Justice Act 1960. The Minister responded positively to sensible points that were made in Committee to ensure the anonymity of vulnerable children in sensitive circumstances. I shall not shed tears for the dismissal of the terms "in camera" and "in chambers". It may sadden lawyers, but it is good news for laymen and supporters of plain English.
	The Minister might have said more about amendments Nos. 235 to 237, which single out the treatment of corporate bodies and partnerships. I may have missed her comments but I do not think that she referred to those amendments. The hon. Member for Lancaster and Wyre (Mr. Dawson) may want to speak about his amendments, with which we have some sympathy.
	We believe that the Minister listened to the discussions in Committee, and the amendments are broadly sensible, so we welcome them.

Hilton Dawson: Two of the amendments in this group—Nos. 130 and 131—are in my name. I will not press amendment No. 131, which has been largely accepted by the Government: Government amendment No. 226 is very similar to it, so I will not waste anyone's time quibbling. That amendment relates to amendment No. 111, which we discussed on Thursday. It was the shining example among my 30-plus amendments: the Government accepted it completely. With that little triumph achieved, we will quickly pass on and feel that we are working on the same lines.
	I hope that we can also be on the same lines over amendment No. 130 which is similarly about the participation of parents and of anyone who has an involvement in these issues; perhaps it is particularly about the participation of parents, though. The Bill basically says that someone who has given consent for a placement or for adoption need not be required to attend court unless the court insists on it. The amendment says that the person, whether at placement order stage, at the stage of variation of such an order, or at adoption order stage, has a right to attend and be heard.
	This is a matter of fundamental human rights. It is about the proper participation of parents in perhaps the most fundamental decisions that any parent can make about the future of their child, and perhaps the most fundamental decisions that any court can make about the future of children. It is not an amendment tabled by some idiosyncratic Labour Back Bencher. It is supported by a vast range of children's organisations. I think that almost every children's organisation that has been involved in making representations on the Bill supports it.
	The amendment relates to the concerns that many of us have—unfortunately, we did not have time to air those concerns on Thursday; I hope that we will get the chance later today to refer to them—about the nature of consent under the Bill. The Children Act 1989 is to be changed fundamentally. Parental responsibility could be transferred to other authorities—to the local authority, to the agency, to the adoptive parent—without going through court. Fundamental decisions could be taken at the consent stage, without taking every case to court for a placement order. Huge decisions about children's lives could be taken under the scrutiny of the Children and Family Court Advisory and Support Service—we will return to that point later—without involving the courts. In fact, without returning to court, decisions could be taken that militate against previous court decisions concerning Children Act section 8 orders, residence, or contact.
	In essence, the amendment would enable parents to "attend and be heard" at crucial court proceedings at the stage of placement, of possible revocation of placement, and certainly of adoption hearings. The argument might be advanced that, if accepted, the amendment would introduce another stage, through which those who have perhaps not attended to their children's best interests could disrupt, delay and prevaricate over the best efforts of all concerned to meet the interests of vulnerable children. However, I have greater faith than that in the court process and in those who work with children.
	I hope that it will be accepted that parents have a right to attend and be heard at these crucial stages, and to participate not just in discussions about whether adoption will proceed, but about crucial issues such as contact with extended family and siblings. It is a matter of human rights and—most importantly—of the best interests of children, so I hope that the amendment will be supported.

Sandra Gidley: I, too, welcome Government new clause 14, and echo the frustration expressed about our proceedings in Committee. Certain hon. Members were delighted when any of their amendments were accepted, and felt that the Government were ignoring them. I am pleased to say that that is no longer the case, as most of our concerns have been addressed through this group of amendments, which will probably improve the process.
	I greatly sympathise with amendment No. 130, which was tabled by the hon. Member for Lancaster and Wyre (Mr. Dawson). A change in emphasis whereby parents would have the right to be present at a hearing is a sound one. Although we can find our way around the system with ease because we do so every day, not everybody feels that way. We tend to forget how difficult it is for others to realise that they have to do certain things at a certain time—such as applying to be present at a hearing—particularly if they are going through a traumatic and stressful time. Anything that would help such people to be part of the process is very welcome.
	Through our constituency surgery cases, we have all discovered how easy it is to be wise after the event and establish what should have been done. However, if parents can be involved at every stage, such situations might decrease. In certain cases, social services could decide that the parents are not doing a very good job and put the child up for adoption themselves. In such cases in particular—I am thinking of one fairly close to home—parents often feel victimised by the system and by social services, and excluded from the whole process.
	I do not want to go into the rights or wrongs of individual cases, but I contend that it is fairer to encourage the parents to be there. It is also fairer for social services departments if the parents are involved. The parents may not like what happens, but they will be able to witness the process and, probably, take part in it in some way.
	Many of the adoption agencies have raised concerns about the human rights aspects. I hope that the Minister will explain how the Bill fits in with the human rights legislation, especially relating to the rights to a fair trial and to a family life.

Jacqui Smith: My hon. Friend the Member for Lancaster and Wyre (Mr. Dawson) is right to say that we are in accord on amendments Nos. 226 and 111—the latter was debated last week—and on his amendment No. 131. He should not be so modest about the impact that he has had on the course of the legislation.
	The Government acknowledge the importance of ensuring that the views of parties to proceedings are appropriately put before the court. The way in which views of the parties—for example, the birth parents of the child—are put before the court will vary in different circumstances and in different types of proceedings. The requirements in the Bill to notify parents and guardians of adoption hearings represent minimum requirements to be set out in court rules. We have already said in Committee that the full detail on representation and party status in proceedings will be set out in secondary legislation such as court rules. We can do that by virtue of the wide rule-making power contained in clause 128(1). We have of course listened closely to Members on both sides of the Special Standing Committee on this issue and we will consider the points made by them when we come to consult on detailed proposals.
	Amendment No. 130 clarifies that a parent or guardian can attend a hearing for a placement order, for a variation or revocation of such an order, or for an adoption order, and may be heard as to their view regarding the proceedings. That is not necessary, because it is legally implicit in the current drafting that notice is given to a person for the same purpose that he is entitled to receive it—that is, to give or withhold consent, apply for leave or whatever. The amendment would not add anything of substance to what is implicit in the Bill.
	The hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton) invited me to comment on amendments Nos. 235, 236 and 237. As he suggested, clause 130 makes provision in relation to offences by bodies corporate and unincorporated bodies. If an offence under the Bill is proved to have been committed with the consent or connivance of, or owing to the neglect of, an officer of a body corporate or an unincorporated body, that officer himself, as well as the body, is guilty of the offence. In cases in which the affairs of a body corporate are managed by its members rather than by officers, the provisions of the clause apply equally to members as to officers.
	Amendment No. 235 inserts three new subsections into clause 130. It clarifies the position on taking proceedings against unincorporated bodies under the Bill. The amendment provides for the procedural provisions that already apply to the prosecution of corporate bodies to apply to the prosecution of unincorporated bodies. The second new subsection provides for any fine imposed on an unincorporated body on its conviction for an offence under the Bill to be paid from the funds of the body, rather than from the funds of its individual members.
	Amendment No. 237 inserts another new subsection into clause 130. It makes specific provision in respect of partnerships, which are a type of unincorporated body. The amendment provides that if an offence is committed by a partnership and it can be proved that it has been committed with the consent or connivance of a particular partner, or that it is attributable to the neglect of a particular partner, that partner as well as the partnership is guilty of an offence. That aligns the provisions on partnerships with the provisions already included in the clause on bodies corporate and unincorporated bodies more generally, and makes the potential criminal liability of a partner clear.

Tim Loughton: I thank the Minister for her clear explanation of the three Government amendments.
	I said earlier that we were potentially sympathetic to amendment No. 130. I feel even more sympathetic to it after hearing it explained by the hon. Member for Lancaster and Wyre (Mr. Dawson). We discussed the issue in Committee, in the context of another part of the Bill. It was generally felt then that information should be made readily available at various stages of the adoption process through various court procedures. Given the emotional state in which people may be when giving up children for adoption, it is even more incumbent on the system to give them every opportunity to participate, to know what they are entitled to, and to be satisfied that the procedures are taking place in accordance with the law and in a fair and balanced way.
	I have no doubt that, as the Minister said, what is already in the Bill makes that legally implicit, as she put it, because notice is given. The Minister also said that the Bill set out minimum requirements for court rules, rather than a requirement for the full explanation that would eventually be on offer. I do not disagree, but, as I have said, we are talking about people who are fairly vulnerable emotionally. If I were involved in an adoption process and received notification from the court that unless I wished or was required to attend I need not do so, I would take that almost as an invitation not to turn up. It would, I think, be more positive and more sensitive to put this more clearly and fairly, and say that a person is entitled to turn up and entitled to speak if he or she sees fit. That, I believe, is the intention of the amendment.
	The hon. Member for Lancaster and Wyre pitched it fairly high, saying that this was a fundamental human right. It is certainly a fundamental human right for people to be fully involved in the process, but I think it only fair and sensible—in order to achieve an equitable result that everyone will accept long after the matter has passed through all the necessary court stages—to make clear to people exactly what they can do, and are entitled to do. That is all that the amendment proposes.
	I doubt whether the hon. Gentleman wants to press the amendment to a vote, but I wanted to reinforce its aims in the hope that the Minister would beef up the directions given to courts when their rules were being established, rather than treating the requirement as a minimum requirement and letting it slip through as such. I think there is a world of difference between being negative and being positive—encouraging people and telling them their rights.

Madam Deputy Speaker: I remind Members that we are not in Committee. I was perhaps rather generous in allowing the hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton) to speak again.
	Question put and agreed to.
	Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Clause 13
	 — 
	Suitability of adopters

'(1) Regulations under section 9 may make provision as to the matters to be taken into account by an adoption agency in determining, or making any report in respect of, the suitability of any persons to adopt a child.
	(2) In particular, the regulations may make provision for the purpose of securing that, in determining the suitability of a couple to adopt a child, proper regard is had to the need for stability and permanence in their relationship'.—[Mr. Hinchliffe.]
	Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

Clause 90
	 — 
	Offence of breaching restrictions under section 89

Amendment made: No. 30, in page 50, line 5, leave out subsections (2) and (3) and insert—
	'(2) A person is not guilty of an offence under subsection (1) of taking the step mentioned in paragraph (f) of section 89(2) unless it is proved that he knew or had reason to suspect that the child was handed over to him in contravention of paragraph (e) of that subsection.
	(3) A person is not guilty of an offence under subsection (1) of causing a person to take any of the steps mentioned in paragraphs (a) to (h) of section 89(2) unless it is proved that he knew or had reason to suspect that the step taken would contravene the paragraph in question.
	( ) But subsections (2) and (3) only apply if sufficient evidence is adduced to raise an issue as to whether the person had the knowledge or reason mentioned'.—[Jacqui Smith.]

Clause 91
	 — 
	Restriction on reports

Amendment made: No. 31, in page 50, line 33, leave out subsection (4) and insert—
	'( ) A person is not guilty of an offence under subsection (2)(b) unless it is proved that he knew or had reason to suspect that the report would be, or had been, prepared in contravention of subsection (1).
	But this subsection only applies if sufficient evidence is adduced to raise an issue as to whether the person had the knowledge or reason mentioned'.—[Jacqui Smith.]

Clause 95
	 — 
	Proceedings for offences

Amendment made: No. 233, in page 52, line 6, leave out subsection (2).—[Jacqui Smith.]

Clause 97
	 — 
	Proceedings to be in private

Amendments made: No. 62, in page 52,, leave out lines 17 and 18 and insert—
	'in the High Court or a County Court may be heard and determined in private'.
	No. 63, in line 18, at end insert—
	'( ) In section 12 of the Administration of Justice Act 1960 (publication of information relating to proceedings in private), in subsection (1)(a)(ii), after "1989" there is inserted "or the Adoption and Children Act 2002".
	( ) In section 97 of the 1989 Act (privacy for children involved in certain proceedings), after "this Act" in subsections (1) and (2) there is inserted "or the Adoption and Children Act 2002"'.—[Jacqui Smith.]

Hilton Dawson: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I am obviously completely unclear about what happens on Report, but what happens about amendment No. 130? Will it be taken later?

Madam Deputy Speaker: The amendments are taken in the order in which they relate to the Bill.

Clause 98
	 — 
	Officers of the Service

Rosie Winterton: I beg to move amendment No. 135, in page 52, line 21, leave out from "of" to "rules" and insert—
	'(a) any relevant application,
	(b) the signification by any person of any consent to placement or adoption'.

Madam Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss Government amendments Nos. 136 to 140, 256, 142 and 143.

Rosie Winterton: We now come to a series of amendments to clause 98. Right hon. and hon. Members may recall that I said in Committee that the Government would consider the issue of avoiding conflicts of interest when appointing CAFCASS officers to act in adoption and placement proceedings. I also undertook to review the clause more generally.
	I am very pleased to move these amendments, which will not only address the conflict of interest issue but improve the protection for parents. They allow CAFCASS officers to witness consents to placement and adoption and improve the range of information that can be put before the court regarding the welfare of the child. The amendments will also allow officers to be appointed in applications for contact with a child who has been placed for adoption, and in other circumstances in the future, should we decide that they could assist children and families in other ways.
	Clause 98 currently provides that rules must provide for a CAFCASS officer to report to the court or act "on behalf of" a child in placement and adoption proceedings, including the making, varying and revoking of placement orders, applications for making adoption orders and applications for the transfer of parental responsibility prior to an adoption abroad. In addition, the CAFCASS officer will witness birth parents' consents in those cases where the birth parents wish to consent. There is power for additional duties to be imposed on CAFCASS officers by secondary legislation. Clause 98 builds on existing provisions in the Adoption Act 1976, as supplemented by secondary legislation.
	CAFCASS officers play an essential role in recommending to the court what is in the best interests of the child, advising on the implications of giving consent in consent cases and being an independent witness of that parent's consent. Amendment No. 135 will enable CAFCASS officers to witness consent before the commencement of court proceedings. We envisage that officers will be provided in prescribed cases to advise birth parents on the implications of giving their consent and to witness their consent where it is given.
	Amendment No. 136 allows the Lord Chancellor to provide in rules for CAFCASS officers to carry out additional duties in prescribed cases if some were identified in future, such as in relation to post-adoption support or advice.
	Amendment No. 137 is a consequential amendment to align the language of "any relevant application" with the reference made in amendment No. 135.
	The Government recognise the importance of ensuring that all relevant matters on the child's welfare are brought to the court's attention. Amendment No. 138 adds to the functions of CAFCASS the requirement that it report to the court, on the court's request, on matters relating to the welfare of the child. That is similar to provision under section 7 of the Children Act 1989. However, it improves the current position in respect of the work that CAFCASS officers can undertake in adoption, as it ensures that the child's welfare is the paramount consideration of the court, in line with clause 1.
	Amendment No. 139 aligns provision in the Bill with that under section 7(2) and (3) of the Children Act, whereby the issues to be covered in a report on the child's welfare must include any matter prescribed by rules, unless the court orders otherwise. Reports may be made orally or in writing as the court requires. We will consult key stakeholders on the rules, following the passage of the Bill.
	The Government acknowledge the importance of ensuring that the views of parties to proceedings are appropriately put before the court. The way in which the views of the parties—for example, the birth parents or the child—are put before the court will vary in different circumstances and in different types of proceeding. We have already said that the full detail on representation and party status in proceedings will be set out in secondary legislation, such as court rules. We have listened closely to Members' points in the Standing Committee and in today's debate and will consider them when we hold consultations on the detailed proposals.
	We must not pre-empt the consultative process, but it is anticipated that the welfare report will include the views of birth parents. Currently, their views are reflected only in the schedule 2 report or in the reports of the children's guardian or the reporting officer. Amendments Nos. 138 and 139 will, therefore, reflect the current law by ensuring that the representation of the views of birth parents is included in the process of making, varying or revoking placement or contact orders, and in the making of an adoption order. I hope that reassures my hon. Friend the Member for Lancaster and Wyre (Mr. Dawson).
	The clause, as currently drafted, also provides for the preclusion of certain persons from being appointed to safeguard the child's interests: in the case of placement proceedings, a person employed by the local authority that made the application, and, in the case of adoption proceedings, a person employed by the adoption agency that placed the child would be precluded from being appointed to safeguard the child's interests.
	In Committee, the hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton) tabled an amendment that would have extended the category of people who may not be appointed. We felt that the provision went too far, but I informed the Committee that I would give the matter further consideration. Having looked more closely at the provisions of clause 98, I think that the specifications for those who could act in the matter could be extended. Amendments Nos. 140 and 256 will fulfil that requirement. I hope that gives the hon. Gentleman some reassurance.
	Amendment No. 142 removes the provision that allows a CAFCASS officer to act on behalf of the child and to witness consents. That provision is no longer necessary as the functions of reporting officer and guardian have been combined.
	The amendments address a number of the points made in Committee; they much improve clause 98 and I hope that the provisions—especially those in respect of the role of CAFCASS officers—will give my hon. Friends some reassurance about—
	It being one and a half hours after the commencement of proceedings on consideration of the Bill, Madam Deputy Speaker, pursuant to Order [16 May], put forthwith the Question already proposed from the Chair.
	Amendment agreed to.
	Madam Deputy Speaker then proceeded to put forthwith the Questions necessary for the disposal of the business to be concluded at that hour.
	Amendments made: No. 136, in page 52, line 23, at end insert—
	'(1A) The rules may provide for the appointment of such an officer in other circumstances in which it appears to the Lord Chancellor to be necessary or expedient to do so.
	(1B) The rules may provide for the officer—'
	No. 137, in page 52, line 24, leave out third "the" and insert "any relevant".
	No. 138, in page 52, line 26, at end insert—
	'(aa) where the court so requests, to prepare a report on matters relating to the welfare of the child in question'.
	No. 139, in page 52, line 28, leave out "other prescribed duties" and insert "prescribed functions.
	(1C) A report prepared in pursuance of the rules on matters relating to the welfare of a child must—
	(a) deal with prescribed matters (unless the court orders otherwise), and
	(b) be made in the manner required by the court'.
	No. 140, in page 52, line 32, leave out "or".
	No. 256, in page 52, line 35, at end insert—
	'or
	(c) is within a prescribed description'.
	No. 142, in page 52, line 36, leave out from "(1)" to end of line 38 and insert "or (1A)".
	No. 143, in page 52, line 40, at end insert—
	'( ) the making of an order under section 25, or the varying or revocation of such an order'.—[Jim Fitzpatrick.]

Clause 115
	 — 
	Office of breaching restriction under section 114

Amendments made: No. 32, in page 65, line 41, leave out subsection (2) and insert—
	'( ) A person is not guilty of an offence under this section (other than one of distributing an advertisement or information, or causing it to be distributed, by electronic means) unless it is proved that he knew or had reason to suspect that section 114 applied to the advertisement or information.
	But this subsection only applies if sufficient evidence is adduced to raise an issue as to whether the person had the knowledge or reason mentioned'.
	No. 144, in page 66, line 1, at beginning insert—
	'Subsections (3A) and (3B) apply'.
	No. 145, in page 66, line 2, leave out from "means" to end of line 7 and insert—
	'(3A) A person is not guilty of the offence unless it is proved that he knew that what was distributed was an advertisement or information to which this section applies; but this subsection only applies if sufficient evidence is adduced to raise an issue as to whether the person had the knowledge mentioned.
	(3B) A person is not guilty of the offence unless it is proved that it was reasonably practicable for him to prevent the distribution; but this subsection only applies if sufficient evidence is adduced to raise an issue as to whether it was reasonably practicable for the person to do so'.—[Ms Rosie Winterton.]

Henry Bellingham: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. We have just had a very short debate on the last group of amendments, on which I had some important points to make. It is most unfair that we have timetabling motions on such non-controversial Bills, and we are getting very frustrated. Is there any way to extend some of these debates?

Madam Deputy Speaker: I must inform the hon. Gentleman that I have no power whatever to override the programme motion to which the House has agreed.

New Clause 7
	 — 
	Accommodation of children in need etc.

'(1) In section 17 of the 1989 Act (provision of services for children in need, their families and others), in subsection (6) (services that may be provided in exercise of the functions under that section) after "include" there is inserted "providing accommodation and ".
	(2) In section 22 of that Act (general duty of local authority in relation to children looked after by them), in subsection (1) (looked after children include those provided with accommodation, with exceptions) before "23B" there is inserted "17".
	(3) In section 24A of that Act (advice and assistance for certain children and young persons aged 16 or over), in subsection (5), for "or, in exceptional circumstances, cash" there is substituted "and, in exceptional circumstances, assistance may be given—
	(a) by providing accommodation, if in the circumstances assistance may not be given in respect of the accommodation under section 24B, or
	(b) in cash.".'.—[Jacqui Smith.]
	Brought up, and read the First time.

Jacqui Smith: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Madam Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following: Government new clause 15—Review of cases of looked after children.
	New clause 12—Advice and assistance for certain children in need—
	'In section 24(2) of the 1989 Act, there is inserted—
	"(f) provided with accommodation under section 17 in circumstances where he was unaccompanied by an adult.".'.
	Amendment No. 132, in clause 112, page 63, line 5, at end insert—
	'(1B) Regulations may be made by the Secretary of State requiring the local authority to arrange for the appointment of an independent advocate on receiving representations under subsection (1).'.
	Amendment No. 133, in page 63, line 27, at end insert—
	'(3C) Regulations may be made by the Secretary of State requiring the local authority to provide independent advocacy to looked after children who make a complaint under the Children Act 1989.'.

Jacqui Smith: We welcome the hon. Member for North-West Norfolk (Mr. Bellingham) to our proceedings this afternoon—at last.
	The new clauses and amendments apply to powers under the Children Act 1989. In particular, they deal with the provision of accommodation, putting care plans on a statutory basis and ensuring their review. During the Special Standing Committee, concerns were raised about a problem that had arisen as a result of a recent judgment of the Court of Appeal—A v. London borough of Lambeth. The judgment meant that local authorities no longer had the power to provide accommodation to children in need and their families under section 17 of the Act, when accommodation was not available from any other source.
	I said that I would review the situation and table a suitable amendment to deal with the problem, with the ultimate aim of safeguarding vulnerable children and their families without placing unacceptable burdens on the system. Since then, there has been a further Court of Appeal judgment in the case of W v. London borough of Lambeth, which appears to overturn the earlier judgment. The original case may still go to the other place, and their Lordships might uphold the original judgment. In the light of the continuing litigation and continuing uncertainty, Government new clauses 7 and 15 seem all the more important to provide clarity and certainty about the state of the law on such issues.
	Historically, section 17 of the Children Act has been considered by the Government and local authorities to empower councils with social services responsibilities to assist children in need and their families by providing them with accommodation or, more often, help with the costs of accommodation, such as payment of a rent deposit or the first month's rent, where help was not available from other sources. That was considered to be an important safety net support mechanism for particularly vulnerable groups, including those families considered to be intentionally homeless, those needing emergency accommodation or older children who, while needing accommodation, do not need the more intensive support provided by foster care or institutions.
	Under the new clause, we therefore aim to clarify the position and to confirm that local authorities have the power, which was thought to exist before the Lambeth judgment, to provide accommodation under section 17 of the 1989 Act. The new clause will do so by amending section 17(6) to make it clear that local authorities can provide assistance in kind, accommodation or, in exceptional circumstances, cash. As a consequence of amending section 17, section 22 of the 1989 Act, which deals with the general duties of local authorities to look after children, also requires amendment.
	Subsection (1)(b) of section 22 defines a looked-after child as one who is provided with accommodation by a local authority. Should the new clause be accepted, section 17 will contain a power specifically for the provision of accommodation. It will be used to provide accommodation for children with their families who, while needing accommodation, do not need to be taken into care. It will also be used to provide accommodation for older children when their needs assessment has shown that they need accommodation, but not to be taken into care. The new clause ensures that section 22 does not apply to children accommodated under section 17, either with their families or alone, and they will therefore not become looked-after children.
	Section 24 of the 1989 Act, which addresses the after care of former looked-after children, is also amended because it mirrors the wording of section 17. The new clause makes specific reference to the provision of accommodation for that group and serves to make the local authority's powers entirely clear. The local authority will have the power to provide accommodation, although not necessarily a duty to do so. That power provides a safety net for all care leavers who have been looked after at the age of 16 or 17—both those who qualify for the support introduced by the Children (Leaving Care) Act 2000 and those who do not. Amendment No. 238, which will be debated shortly, will enable the new clause to come into force as soon as the Bill receives Royal Assent. So new clause 7 enables us to remove the uncertainty caused by recent court cases and to ensure that local authorities are clear that they have the ability to provide accommodation in the cases that I have outlined.
	New clause 15 makes provision in respect of care plans and the review of cases of looked-after children. Care plans are written evidence that the local authority has considered what must be done to ensure that a child's period in care properly addresses the needs of that child. After the assessment, care plans are put together and agreed with a range of agencies and services—most often education and health services—setting out how the needs of the child should be met.
	Clause 113 sets out the requirement that a court may not make a care order until a care plan has been prepared by the local authority and considered by the court. We have developed that in the new clause and the amendments on care plans, which are contained in the next group of amendments, to establish a robust system that includes the process for reviewing care plans and how recourse to court may be sought if the care plan is not properly implemented. The provisions apply both to children who are subject to care orders and to those who are accommodated by the local authority. In both cases, the care plan has to be written and reviewed at appropriate intervals, and modified where necessary. We need to be sure that, once prepared, care plans are implemented so that they are worth the paper they are printed on. The mechanisms to review the care plan therefore need to be suitably robust.
	Subsection (1) of new clause 15 amends section 26 of the 1989 Act. It enables the Secretary of State to make regulations requiring local authorities to keep care plans for all children under review, whether they be section 31A care plans required in court proceedings, or care plans agreed in the case of children voluntarily looked after under section 20 of the 1989 Act. In addition, the regulations will require the appointment of a person to be a reviewing officer. Subsection (2) of new clause 15 enables regulations to be made setting out who should be appointed and the way in which the person will carry out their role. We have in mind a person who has the seniority required to have sufficient status to ensure that they can effect the implementation of the care plan in the interests of the child. In our view, that person needs to have professional expertise in children's services, and to be independent of the case and its management.
	Reviewing officers will be required to chair the review meetings and assure themselves of the implementation of the care plan by speaking to the child before the review takes place. The intention is to ensure that quality control is built into the system. Through their activity, reviewing officers will monitor the performance of the authority in each case. However, despite the best efforts and influencing skills of the reviewing officer, the local authority might fail to carry out key parts of the care plan in some cases. The amendment is being introduced because of concern that sometimes care plans are not implemented. We therefore need to ensure that there is a remedy when there is still a failure. Subsection (2)(c) of new clause 15 will enable the reviewing officer to refer a case to CAFCASS when the situation demands it. It allows the Lord Chancellor to make regulations to extend the functions of CAFCASS officers in respect of family proceedings.
	When a child has no family or carer to act on their behalf, or is unable to challenge the local authority's handling of the care plan, CAFCASS will be able to take proceedings on behalf of the child. CAFCASS will be able to use existing remedies under the Children Act—for example, it can apply for the discharge of the care order or for contact between the child and another person. Under the Human Rights Act 1998, it can seek to injunct the local authority from taking a particular step—for example, removing the child from an established placement. It can also seek a declaration that the local authority's plans are contrary to the child's human rights, which would require those plans to be rethought.
	The amendments respond effectively to the issues raised in the case known as Re S & Re W, on which judgment was recently given in the House of Lords. The judgment identified that, currently, a young child in respect of whom a care plan has been made, but with no parent or guardian to act for them, has no effective means of bringing before the court any breach of their convention rights as a result of a local authority's inaction in implementing the care plan. By putting care plans on a statutory footing, establishing a review process that allows for that to happen and providing for the reviewing officer to refer cases to CAFCASS, we are ensuring that this gap in the law is properly filled and that children's needs will be met as effectively as possible through the systems provided under the Children Act.

Sandra Gidley: First, I welcome the increased protection for 16 and 17-year-olds. Frequently, there is a gap in provision when someone hits that age, and it is unclear where that provision will come from. I welcome the extension to other areas. I have a small number of questions, however, about the group of amendments in relation to care plans.
	I welcome the Minister's statement. She said that the Government needed to be sure that the care plans were worth the paper on which they were printed. She will recall that, on the first day on Report, we examined the issue of whether the funding would be available. I am still slightly concerned about whether a lack of funding would be accepted as a good enough reason for not fulfilling the care plan. Will the Minister confirm whether any provision in the Bill would, in effect, prevent a local authority or an education authority from cutting a care plan according to the cloth? Will that role be fulfilled by CAFCASS? Does it have the powers to say, "This must be done. Therefore, it must be funded"? How will that work out in practice?

Hilton Dawson: We have been agreeing like billy-oh already this afternoon, so let us try to make further progress with regard to new clause 12 and amendments Nos. 132 and 133.
	I tabled new clause 12 a while ago in response to huge concerns expressed to the all-party group on children and young people in care about possible loopholes in the Children Act 1989 and the Children (Leaving Care) Act 2000. A great deal of concern has been expressed about young people who in other circumstances might be accommodated or looked after by local authorities. Instead of being taken into the care system, with all the implications that that has for the services provided under the 2000 Act, children of up to 21 or even 24 are denied that opportunity. Only their most basic needs for accommodation and food are met under section 17 of the 1989 Act, but they are not looked after by the local authority. They are encouraged to go into bed- and-breakfast accommodation rather than into foster or residential care. Essentially, they are offered a low-quality, low-cost half solution to their tremendous needs. Concern has been expressed that the Government's good intentions for young people in care or leaving care, as expressed in the 2000 Act, which amends the fundamentally important 1989 Act, could be thwarted by the action of adults using—and, frankly, abusing—section 17 for people for whom it should not be used. That would deny such people their rights.
	Much concern has been expressed about people in that position, but particular reference has been made to unaccompanied asylum-seeking young people being placed in such circumstances.

Jonathan Djanogly: I think I heard the hon. Gentleman say that keeping a child in care was a low-cost scenario.

Hilton Dawson: indicated dissent

Jonathan Djanogly: That might not be the case, but I am sure the hon. Gentleman will agree that compared with the alternatives such as adoption, which has an immediate cost, the long-term costs of keeping a child in care are dramatically higher.

Hilton Dawson: I may not have expressed myself very well, but the hon. Gentleman has entirely missed my point. I was talking not about adoption but about the needs of teenagers. For example, because of circumstances such as family breakdown, one could argue that some 15 and 16-year-olds should be looked after by the care system. Instead, they run the risk of being fobbed off with a low-cost, poor-quality alternative. I was not talking about adoption for those young people.
	As I said, reference has been made, in particular, to the young people who come to these shores as unaccompanied asylum seekers. The children who arrive in this country without adult support and in distressing circumstances often do not have the basic requisites of life. A few months ago, I met a couple of young people who arrived in this country without shoes; such young people require the most thorough assessment of their needs so that their best interests can be promoted.
	Children are children are children wherever they come from. It is highly inappropriate that section 17 should be used to place young people in bed-and-breakfast accommodation or poor-quality accommodation without their receiving the thorough assessment and support that they need in circumstances that many adults—let alone young people—would find difficult to face. I support the Government's proposal significantly to strengthen section 17, and I hope that we can move on and ensure that young people on their own who are offered accommodation under that section can have access to the excellent support that the Government introduced in the Children (Leaving Care) Act.
	Similarly, I support the Government's proposal to place care plans on a statutory footing and the measures concerning the intervention of an independent person in the review process. That is the most important juncture at which one can intervene in the care system to affect the lives of children and young people, all of whom are entitled to a statutory review of their circumstances on at least a six-monthly basis.
	Tremendous work has been done by advocacy organisations such as Voice for the Child in Care and the National Youth Advocacy Service, and by children's rights officers and their association. They have been able to deal with the circumstances of many children and young people in care. Organisations such as National Voice and the Care Leavers Association have been able to respond to children and young people who contact them, but if there can be statutory intervention with an independent element when care plans are being made or reviewed, which is a crucial point in the process, that will be of fundamental importance.
	Amendments Nos. 132 and 133 refer to the need to provide independent advocacy to support children in making representations and complaints, which is another important juncture at which young people should be supported by independent organisations. The 1989 Act contains a provision for independent visitors. That is another example of how excellent intentions have not, with one or two exceptions, been fulfilled. It is tremendously important that young people in care have access to independent support.

Julian Brazier: The hon. Gentleman is making an extremely important point. Will he clarify whether he is suggesting that independent visitors could provide the independent advocacy proposed in the new clause? Many Conservative Members would welcome that.

Hilton Dawson: Yes, indeed. We need to build on the Children Act to ensure that children have more access to independent visitors. It is not enough to say that we will try to ensure such access. Independent visitors often need the backing of advocacy organisations, good examples of which I have mentioned, and we need to strengthen the access of children and young people in care to independent advocacy, particularly when complaints and representations are made. I do not want to digress too much, but I point out that the Select Committee on Home Affairs is currently investigating the alleged mistreatment of people who have worked in the residential care system in years past and been subject to allegations. One of the main concerns relates to adults who make complaints many years on about their treatment in care.
	If we are to ensure that young people's complaints and concerns about their treatment in care are represented properly and in a timely fashion, we should ensure that they have good access to independent advocacy and support in making representations and complaints.

Henry Bellingham: The hon. Member for Lancaster and Wyre (Mr. Dawson) made a thoughtful and constructive contribution. I agree with the Minister that the Government should take note of the so-called Lambeth judgment. The need for clarity and certainty was obvious.
	I seek further clarification on one or two issues. The Minister spoke about the provision that would be made in relation to section 17 of the Children Act 1989, which deals with accommodation. Presumably, such provision would not relate to local authority homes, but would deal with help for children in private accommodation, whether in bed-and-breakfast establishments, with foster parents or elsewhere.
	I take on board the Minister's point about assistance in kind or cash. In what circumstances would that additional assistance be made available? I would have thought it was important for direct help to be available as a matter of course and that it should not be difficult to apply for. The Minister also mentioned rent and expenses. Will she further clarify that point? Furthermore, the provision deals with a power for local authorities, but should not it introduce a duty? The new clauses give extra power and commitment to CAFCASS, but will it receive any extra funding? In the light of the Government new clauses and our short debate on the previous group of amendments, there appears to be a need to ensure that CAFCASS has some additional funding to enable it to take care of those additional matters.
	On new clause 15 and care orders, I should like clarification on one specific point. Clause 113(2)(5), which refers to section 31(3A) of the Children Act 1989, deals with interim care orders. Do care plans always arise from care orders? I am not clear about that; will the Minister give a few more details? Otherwise, I support the Minister. She is right to introduce the new clauses, which are a very constructive response to the House of Lords judgment.

Elfyn Llwyd: I, too, support the amendments, bearing in mind the decisions in A v. London borough of Lambeth and W v. London borough of Lambeth, which were different. There was a clear need to plug the gap and I am pleased that the Government have moved quickly to do so.
	The hon. Member for Lancaster and Wyre (Mr. Dawson) tabled new clause 12, to which I was pleased to sign up. The proposal appears to be yet another triumph for him, as the purport of Government new clause 7 is the same as that of his new clause, although it is extended and more broadly drafted. I congratulate him once more on the assiduity with which he has pursued the Bill and the interests that underlie it.
	I agree with the hon. Member for North-West Norfolk (Mr. Bellingham), who mentioned the issue of obligations as opposed to powers, that the Minister was careful to say that the new clause was intended to re-empower local government. She used the word "empower" several times. I would have preferred the word "obliged", but we will not go into the semantics now. In fact, this is about more than semantics. We had lengthy discussions about this in Committee, but there is no time to do the same today. I was mindful of the fact that the Minister was careful to use the word "empower" each time.
	On amendments Nos. 132 and 133, I fully support what has been said by the hon. Members for Lancaster and Wyre and for North-West Norfolk about the need for independent advocacy. These are very helpful amendments, and I hope that, even if they are not accepted, the spirit of them will be, and that we shall see greater recognition of the importance of arm's-length, independent advocacy for youngsters in need. With those few words, I am pleased to support new clause 7.

Tim Loughton: I shall make just a few comments on the new clauses tabled by the Government, but first, I want to refer to the well-considered, well-put comments from the hon. Member for Lancaster and Wyre (Mr. Dawson). He certainly need not cover his modesty, as the Minister exhorted earlier. The principles behind what he is saying are absolutely right, and his amendments would make useful, practical additions to the process. The suggestion of independent visitors—particularly unpaid outsiders—providing an advocacy service has some interesting merits, and the Minister could consider the hon. Gentleman's suggestions in more detail. I would certainly like to speak to the noble Lords in the upper House when the Bill moves on for their scrutiny, to see whether they might be able to fashion these principles into amendments to improve the Bill, if the Minister is not minded to accept them. We do not know whether that is the case; she may well allow the hon. Gentleman to make another hit for which he could claim responsibility. He has certainly raised some interesting points.
	We welcome much of what the Minister has outlined regarding new clauses 7 and 15. She has responded to some of the fruitful debates that we had in Committee by putting the care plans into a statutory process and making sure that that process is constantly reviewed. Obviously, there is uncertainty at the moment following the case of W v. London borough of Lambeth, and the Minister has had to be mindful of that. It is good that care plans should be given a statutory basis, providing written evidence that a local authority has considered the needs of the children involved, and that they should be reviewed.
	Care plans are organic things. A local authority cannot simply draw up a care plan for a child at a particular time, lock it in a drawer and forget about it. Children going through the adoption process, including damaged children with special educational needs, behavioural difficulties and all sorts of other things that particularly affect adopted children, will react differently to new scenarios. What may be appropriate at the time of the adoption may turn out not to be appropriate some months or years later. It is not good enough for a local authority to say, "We drew up a care plan." It must be able to say that it has drawn up a care plan and made sure that it continued to be the appropriate care plan, with the appropriate mix of care and support services that the child needed after all the legal adoption processes have been completed. This is an organic process.
	We also welcome the appointment of the new reviewing officers, and I look forward to seeing exactly how they will carry out their role. My understanding is that although they will be independent of the child's case and its management, they will not be independent of the local authority. Indeed, they will be appointed by it. I would like the Minister to tell us how they will maintain their independence, and to assure us that there will be no problem over vested interests from the authority that has appointed them.
	I think that I read in the Minister's explanation in an earlier note that certain local authorities already operate the independent reviewing officer system. Although it has no basis in this legislation, it might be interesting to know where it operates and with what success. The principle certainly seems right, so if it has worked it would be appropriate to take a more uniform approach across local authorities which are obviously dealing with the same problem.
	The Minister also said that the reviewing officer would have the power to refer a case to CAFCASS if that were merited. The point was raised in Committee, particularly by the hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy (Mr. Llwyd), that CAFCASS has had problems and that there has been a haemorrhaging of its officers. One would need to be reassured again that, if a case is serious enough to merit referral to CAFCASS, the service will be in a position properly to deal with it, and that there will be sufficient officer-resource time to ensure that a suitable response is made and that suitable remedies are found.
	In explanations that the Minister has given in correspondence on care plans, she has talked in terms of the need to protect children's human rights, which will be also a function of the reviewing officer. Of course that must be right, but such terms are very broad. One presumes that she is referring to something like article 8 of the convention for the protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms, which states:
	"Everyone has the right to respect for his private and family life, his home and his correspondence."
	Those are fine but lofty ideals, and one would hope that legislation is predicated rather closer to home on more basic deficiencies in the care plan, such as the fact that it is not very good, has not been reviewed regularly and is clearly inappropriate. We need more domestic and earthy definitions instead of relying on a vaguer definition concerning breaches of the child's human rights, which are always difficult to pin down and become a case for the lawyers.
	I do not want to be churlish; the new clauses reflect the Minister's work in response to concerns raised in Committee. Some serious, practical and new mechanisms are to be implemented. Subject to the relatively minor concerns that I have raised, we welcome the changes. At the same time, we ask the Minister to look charitably on the amendments tabled by the hon. Member for Lancaster and Wyre on the advocacy service.

Jacqui Smith: New clause 12, as my hon. Friend the Member for Lancaster and Wyre (Mr. Dawson) suggested, would have the effect of introducing an entitlement to after-care for a young person who is provided with accommodation under section 7 of the Children Act 1989, where that young person is not accompanied by an adult. My hon. Friend's speech rightly emphasised the importance of assessments for young people aged 16 and 17. I agree that proper assessment of young people is key.
	All children in need who present to local authorities should receive a proper needs assessment along the lines set out in "The Framework for the Assessment of Children in Need and their Families". That guidance, as I am sure my hon. Friend knows, was jointly issued to local authorities in March 2000 by the Department of Health, the Home Office and the Department for Education and Employment under section 7 of the Local Authority Social Services Act 1970. It is therefore statutory guidance, and local authorities must follow it unless there are exceptional circumstances that justify a variation.
	The guidance specifically mentions the special needs that unaccompanied asylum-seeking children may have and which the framework is structured to address. Local authorities have been reminded from time to time that the framework applies to those children as to all others, most recently in the practice guidance produced by British Agencies for Adoption and Fostering in consultation with the Department of Health and published last November as "Food, Shelter and Half a Chance", to which I contributed the foreword. That assessment, in the context of the Children Act 1989 itself, determines whether a young person needs the full range of support provided in the looked-after system or whether they need the less intensive help offered under section 17.
	The guidance emphasises the importance of taking a child-centred approach throughout the process. Section 20(6) of the Children Act also obliges the local authority first to ascertain the child's wishes regarding the provision of accommodation and then to give due consideration to those wishes. It is not helpful to blur the line between the two forms of help available through the looked-after system and section 17, which is what the amendment would do.
	However, I am as concerned as my hon. Friend that children seeking help without the support of an adult carer should receive first a proper needs assessment and then appropriate assistance from local authorities. I know that he and other hon. Members, including my hon. Friend the Member for Gedling (Vernon Coaker), have taken a close interest in the welfare of unaccompanied asylum seekers in particular. I welcomed the opportunity to meet my hon. Friends the other day to discuss that issue. As I said then, I shall continue to remind local authorities about their obligations to those young people under the Children Act.
	I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for Lancaster and Wyre has read, if not contributed to, the recent Save the Children report, "Cold Comfort—Young Separated Refugees in England", which, among other things, highlights the fact that practice varies from authority to authority. The report found good practice as well as less good, which is why the Department of Health and the Home Office are jointly sponsoring a project on unaccompanied asylum-seeking children. That will give us much better information on current practice that we shall use to help to improve and standardise the care offered to the young people in the cases that he outlined.
	I am not unsympathetic to the call to achieve the standard of care necessary to ensure that young people in those circumstances receive the proper assessment and the care that is necessary, but I disagree with my hon. Friend on whether conflating the needs dealt with by sections 17 and 20 is a satisfactory way to proceed. On the basis of those points, I hope that he feels able to withdraw his amendment.
	My hon. Friend raised issues relating to amendments Nos. 132 and 133 and the use of independent advocacy in social services complaints procedures. Clause 112, which the amendments relate to, already amends sections 24 and 26 of the Children Act, which makes provision in respect of the Act's complaints procedure to respond to views expressed through the "Listening to People" consultation exercise.
	On several occasions in Committee, we went through the improvements that that clause will make to the Children Act in correcting the anomaly in the complaints procedures for grievances involving children and ensuring that complaints about the discharge of local authority functions, including care supervision and child protection, are dealt with under the child-focused Children Act complaints procedure rather than the adult complaints procedure established under the 1970 Act. Clause 112 will enable regulations to be made to impose time limits and to introduce an informal resolution stage. All those provisions offer the potential to improve the complaints procedure in relation to children and young people.
	Amendments Nos. 132 and 133 would make specific provision in respect of independent advocacy. As I said in Committee, the Government are very sympathetic to the issues that they raise. That is why we are engaging in consultation with providers, commissioners and users of advocacy services about the matters that we will need to deal with to make the provision of independent advocacy far more widely available—for example, funding, standards and training. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Lancaster and Wyre that children and young people can be especially vulnerable when they want to raise problems or concerns and that they need support at such times. However, it is important to introduce the changes when we have done the work that is necessary to be sure about what we mean by independent advocacy services and about how best to provide them.

Hilton Dawson: My hon. Friend has drawn a clear distinction between sections 17 and 20 of the Children Act 1989 and has acknowledged that practice differs around the country. Is not the point at which young people refer themselves to a local authority, which then decides what sort of service to offer them, the crucial point at which they need some independent advocacy?

Jacqui Smith: Given what I said about being sympathetic to the principle of independent advocacy, I agree with my hon. Friend that that may well be the time at which someone would need support and advocacy. My argument concerns whether my hon. Friend's amendments—at this time, in relation to this Bill, and in this precise form—are premature and insufficiently flexible to deliver what we need to deliver throughout the whole system. I do not wish to be overly critical of the amendments, but during the debate interesting points were raised about what is actually meant by independent advocacy and about the range of people who can provide that service. For example, the hon. Member for Canterbury (Mr. Brazier) wondered whether independent visitors would be included.
	Using the term "independent advocacy" in primary legislation might be too restrictive, given that we have not yet determined precisely what it means or the range of people who might be involved in it. For example, we would not necessarily want to limit advocacy to a legally or professionally qualified person. Officials in the Department have carried out extensive consultation, including, importantly, with young people's organisations, and feedback from those groups has told us repeatedly that flexibility is important and that young people want the choice of who provides advocacy. It could be a relative or a friend from the local community. Peer advocacy and mentoring is popular among many young people. More work is needed to define what sort of service would best meet young people's needs and to clarify the roles of the different professionals involved in complaints procedures. At the moment, a range of people can be involved, including independent persons, complaints officers, independent reviewing officers, independent visitors and "listening to children" officers. We must be careful that those roles are not confused, especially during the early stage of the procedure when we want complaints or concerns to be resolved informally, because confusion is all too prevalent for many young people.
	The Government's determination to get all these issues right is shown by the work that has already started to consult advocacy providers, commissioners of services, and children and young people's organisations. A consultation is under way to consider the funding of advocacy services, definitions of the different professionals who provide advocacy and the introduction of national standards and training for advocates. Those are all key issues. Until that consultation is completed, we will not be in a position to define what we want local authorities to deliver and how we want them to deliver it. Before that is done, we will not be sure that the amendments would provide what is needed.
	We need to promote the use of national advocacy standards. We are consulting on the standards that have been developed by the Department, the National Youth Advocacy Service and the advocacy consortium. That will help councils and children's organisations to arrive at a definition of independent advocacy and to set clear models of practice.

Henry Bellingham: Has the Minister or the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department, the hon. Member for Doncaster, Central (Ms Winterton), liaised with the Law Society, which could certainly help in laying down guidelines or even in providing training and assistance?

Jacqui Smith: I do not close my doors to anybody who might be able to help us to develop our work on advocacy. Lawyers may often have an important role to play in the system of advocacy for young people, but perhaps not always as advocates. That is why we need to listen to what young people say is most effective for them. We have carried out several regional roadshows, which we are using to consult with advocacy organisations, young people's organisations and councils about how best further to strengthen advocacy for looked-after children. The consultation closes in July and we intend to publish the standards over the summer. Our work on advocacy services also links into the quality protects programme, through which we have made considerable progress in involving children in decision making. However, the provision and quality of advocacy services is still inconsistent, and that remains a development area for many councils.
	Although we recognise the importance of the issues raised by the amendments, they are not necessarily the right way forward, especially in terms of timing. Work is already under way, but there is still more to be done before we can consider making the provision of independent advocacy services a statutory requirement. On that basis, I hope that my hon. Friend will feel able to withdraw his amendments.
	I want to deal with a few points that hon. Members made about the new clauses. The hon. Member for North-West Norfolk (Mr. Bellingham) asked about the nature of care plans and whether they always related to court orders. I can tell him that the provisions on care plans come from section 31 of the Children Act 1989 where they relate to court orders and from section 20 of the Act where children are voluntarily accommodated. The new clause ensures that the Bill and reviews of care plans cover both those forms of care plan.
	Hon. Members asked for more guidance about how the system will work in practice. Production of a care plan would be necessary in respect of a care order before the court considered what order, if any, to make. The court would consider the care plan and would be under a duty to do so before making that decision. Subsequently, the role of the reviewing officer would be to review the extent to which the care plan was being implemented. We believe that strengthening the independent reviewing function is important to ensure accountability and the achievement of the important milestones in the care plan.
	The hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton) asked about the position on independent reviewing officers. In guidance, we shall make it clear that the local authority can employ reviewing officers, or that other organisations with expertise or other local authorities can provide them. That will enable local authorities that have invested time and training in staff and already have independent reviewing structures up and running to maintain their arrangements. However, that does not prevent other organisations from offering their expertise when appropriate. I envisage several organisations offering such expertise. I am keen to avoid over-prescription, which will dislocate good practice and mean a move backwards.
	When a local authority builds on existing arrangements, the guidance will clearly set out that the reviewing officers' independence must be established. They must be independent of the child's case, but not necessarily of the local authority.

Angela Watkinson: In the light of the serious historic overspending of so many social services departments in local authorities, is the Minister confident that they can implement the care plans?

Jacqui Smith: I was about to deal with that point. First, let me finish the points on the guidance. The independent reviewing officer must be independent of the case management, the line management of the social workers who are conducting the assessment and perhaps social services departments. We have a precedent in the registration and inspection units being accountable to the chief executive. Under the new arrangements, that could be a part of the council's scrutiny function.

Tim Loughton: In the letter that the Minister sent us on 10 May, she said that the reviewing officer would be appointed by the local authority either from its staff or under an arrangement with another local authority or body. She also said that some local authorities already do that. I asked for some examples of the way in which that works, especially with regard to independence. Although the independent reviewing officers have to be independent of the case, they may work for the same local authority and be shy of criticising their employers' care plans.

Jacqui Smith: I am sorry that I have not been able to provide specific examples of the way in which the arrangements are working. Perhaps I can write to the hon. Gentleman. I was outlining the nature of the regulations and guidance if the new clause is accepted. He makes a fair point when he says that we must ensure the independence of the reviewing officer. It is not impossible to set up a structure in a local authority whereby employees can maintain their independence. It is vital that reviewing officers are independent of the case management and perhaps the social services department in the authority. We will make that clear in the regulations.
	The hon. Members for Romsey (Sandra Gidley) and for Upminster (Angela Watkinson) asked about resources. Dare I say it, the Government have recognised the historic—pre-1997—underfunding of social services departments through considerable real-terms increases. Future increases may be even larger; they may reach 6 per cent. in real terms in the next three years. I am confident that although we need to do more to ensure that the money is spent as wisely as possible, the Government are ensuring the necessary resources to safeguard children through the care plans and procedures that the Bill establishes.
	The hon. Member for North-West Norfolk asked specific questions about the use of section 17 of the 1989 Act. To be honest, it depends on the circumstances of the case. It may be used to obtain accommodation from private sources or registered social landlords. It could take any relevant form that would help children to be brought up in their own families and avoid the need to come into care. As I suggested earlier, its use will differ.
	Some hon. Members have suggested that we should place a duty on local authorities to provide accommodation. Although I am pleased that the new clause makes it clear that local authorities have the power to provide accommodation, I do not believe that it is appropriate to impose a duty on them. We do not intend to supersede the responsibilities of housing departments, provide a method of jumping housing queues or place the provision of accommodation above all the other services that may be provided for children in need and their families.
	I believe that we have struck the right balance in ensuring that local authorities are clear about their powers under section 17. I hope that we have reassured local authorities and, more important, ensured that vulnerable families have access to the safety net provision of section 17. That and our changes to the provisions on care planning mean that we shall ensure better planning for our children, better independent review processes and more opportunity for considering the rare cases when care plans are not implemented in the way that we all support. I hope that hon. Members will support the new clause.
	Question put and agreed to.
	Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Clause 15
	 — 
	Review of cases of looked after children

'(1) In section 26 of the 1989 Act (review of cases of looked after children, etc.), in subsection (2) (regulations as to reviews)—
	(a) in paragraph (e), "to consider" is omitted and after "their care" there is inserted—
	"(i) to keep the section 31A plan for the child under review and, if they are of the opinion that some change is required, to revise the plan, or make a new plan, accordingly,
	(ii) to consider",
	(b) in paragraph (f), "to consider" is omitted and after the second mention of "the authority" there is inserted—
	"(i) if there is no plan for the future care of the child, to prepare one,
	(ii) if there is such a plan for the child, to keep it under review and, if they are of the opinion that some change is required, to revise the plan or make a new plan, accordingly,
	(iii) to consider".
	(c) after paragraph (j) there is inserted—
	"(k) for the authority to appoint a person in respect of each case to carry out in the prescribed manner the functions mentioned in subsection (2A) and any prescribed function".
	(2) After that subsection there is inserted—
	"(2A) The functions referred to in subsection (2)(k) are—
	(a) participating in the review of the case in question,
	(b) monitoring the performance of the authority's functions in respect of the review,
	(c) referring the case to an officer of the Children and Family Court Advisory and Support Service, if the person appointed under subsection (2)(k) considers it appropriate to do so.
	(2B) A person appointed under subsection (2)(k) must be a person of a prescribed description.
	(2C) In relation to children whose cases are referred to officers under subsection (2A)(c), the Lord Chancellor may by regulations—
	(a) extend any functions of the officers in respect of family proceedings (within the meaning of section 12 of the Criminal Justice and Court Services Act 2000) to other proceedings,
	(b) require any functions of the officers to be performed in the manner prescribed by the regulations"'.—[Jacqui Smith.]
	Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Clause 6
	 — 
	Meaning of "harm" in the 1989 Act

'In section 31 of the 1989 Act (care and supervision orders), at the end of the definition of "harm" in subsection (9) there is inserted "including, for example, impairment suffered from seeing or hearing the ill-treatment of another".'.—[Jacqui Smith.]
	Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

Clause 107
	 — 
	Parental responsibility of unmarried father

Amendment made: No. 93, in page 55, line 38, after "18(1)", insert—
	', and sections 18(2)(b) and 20(1)(a),'.—[Jacqui Smith.]

Clause 111
	 — 
	Special guardianship

Amendments made: No. 94, in page 58, line 12, at end insert—
	'(d) a local authority foster parent with whom the child has lived for a period of at least one year immediately preceding the application.'.
	No. 293, in page 58, line 45, at end insert—
	'( ) This section is subject to section 28(3B) and (3C) of the Adoption and Children Act 2002.'.
	No. 95, in page 59, line 3, after first "made", insert—
	'(a)'.
	No. 96, in page 59, line 4, at end insert—
	'and
	(b) any section 8 order in force with respect to the child should be varied or discharged.'.
	No. 97, in page 59, line 14, leave out "later order made" and insert—
	'other order in force with respect to the child'.
	No. 294, in page 59, line 39, at end insert—
	'( ) This section is subject to section 28(3D) of the Adoption and Children Act 2002.'.
	No. 98, in page 60, line 2, at end insert—
	'(ca) any individual not falling within any of paragraphs (a) to (c) who has, or immediately before the making of the special guardianship order had, parental responsibility for the child;'.
	No. 278, in page 60,, leave out lines 11 and 12 and insert—
	'(3) The following must obtain the leave of the court before making an application under subsection (1)—
	(a) the child;
	(b) any parent or guardian of his;
	(c) any step-parent of his who has acquired, and has not lost, parental responsibility for him by virtue of section 4A;
	(d) any individual falling within subsection (1)(ca) who immediately before the making of the special guardianship order had, but no longer has, parental responsibility for him.'.
	No. 279, in page 60, line 17, leave out—
	'parent or guardian of the child'
	and insert—
	'person falling within subsection (3)(b), (c) or (d)'.
	No. 231, in page 60, line 18, leave out "of" and insert "in".
	No. 101, in page 60, leave out lines 20 to 22.
	No. 102, in page 61, line 5, leave out—
	'A local authority may, and in prescribed cases must,'.
	No. 103, in page 61, line 9, at end insert—
	'(c) any other person who falls within a prescribed description,'.
	No. 104, in page 61, leave out lines 10 and 11 and insert—
	'a local authority may carry out an assessment of that person's needs for special guardianship support services (but, if the Secretary of State so provides in regulations, they must do so if he is a person of a prescribed description, or if his case falls within a prescribed description, or if both he and his case fall within prescribed descriptions).
	( ) A local authority may, at the request of any other person, carry out an assessment of that person's needs for special guardianship support services.'.
	No. 105, in page 62, leave out lines 20 to 22 and insert—
	'any person to whom they may provide special guardianship support services'.—[Jacqui Smith.]

Clause 113
	 — 
	Care plans

Jacqui Smith: I beg to move amendment No. 259, in page 64, line 2, leave out from "a" to end of line 3 and insert "section 31A plan"".

Madam Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss Government amendments Nos. 260 to 263.

Jacqui Smith: This group of amendments is consequential on new clause 15, which we have just debated. They are minor amendments that are required to adjust the existing legislation because of the introduction of the new clause.
	As I have explained, clause 113 inserts new section 31A into the Children Act 1989. It sets out the requirement that a court may not make a care order until a care plan has been prepared by the local authority and considered by the court. A care plan prepared under that provision is to be known as a section 31A plan.
	We have developed that requirement through new clause 15, and this group of amendments is designed to establish a robust system that includes the process for reviewing care plans, and set down how recourse to court may be sought where the care plan is not being properly implemented. The requirement will apply both to children who are subject to care orders and to those who are accommodated by the local authority.

Julian Brazier: Can the Minister clarify how the amendments will affect, if at all, the frequent complaint from family division judges that the court makes a ruling on a care plan and then, because there is no requirement to come back to court, there is no way of determining whether the local authority has completely ignored that ruling?

Jacqui Smith: These amendments, together with new clause 15, set in place a system to ensure that that does not happen. In summary, the court would consider the care plan and the order that it was due to make. Ongoing scrutiny would then be undertaken not by the court but by the independent reviewing officer to ensure that the care plan was being implemented in the way that had been agreed.
	Of course, we hope that that scrutiny and independent review would ensure that the care plan was implemented as it should be. In extreme cases, the independent reviewing officer could take the view that that was not happening and that, for example, a child's human rights might necessitate returning to the court for consideration of the fact that the care plan was not being implemented. At that point, the independent reviewing officer could refer the case to the CAFCASS officer, who could then, so to speak, exercise that child's rights.
	The case to which I referred earlier raised the concern that sometimes a child does not have a guardian or anyone else who can take up their case. At present there would then be no one who could enforce that child's rights in relation to the care plan. The system that we are putting in place ensures that in the very few cases in which the reviewing function has not worked and the care plan is not being implemented, there is a route back to court to ensure that that child's rights are protected.

Julian Brazier: I am grateful to the Minister for her clear explanation, but I would like to ask her one further question. Let us assume that the system has failed, the mechanism that she has described cranks into place, it becomes clear to the independent reviewing officer that the court's wishes have been ignored, and the reviewing officer then takes action. The crucial question then is: what sanction is there? The problem at the moment is that there is no sanction against the local authority. The Minister has put the mechanism in place, but how does the sanction work?

Jacqui Smith: It would be a pretty considerable sanction for a local authority to know that its care plan was being referred back to the court for review and a possible decision about the order. That would be a more significant sanction than currently exists.
	Amendment No. 262 will remove from subsection (2) of new section 31A of the Children Act, as inserted by clause 113, the reference to a care order made on the application being in force. Where a care order is in force, the requirements for the review of care plans set out in new clause 15 will apply.
	Amendment No. 263 will insert into new section 31A a new subsection to define a "section 31A plan", which is a care plan prepared for a child in respect of whom a care order is pending.
	Taken together with new clause 15, this group of amendments is an important part of the framework that will ensure that local authorities address the needs of children in a systematic and robust way. The elements of assessment and care planning, implementation and review will all be vital if we are to get the corporate parent to act in a proper and flexible way to meet the needs of children.
	The aim of new clause 15 and the amendments is to ensure that children, whether they are accommodated by the local authority or are subject to a court order, have a care plan, that the care plan is reviewed at regular intervals, that children have a say in the process, and that the review is overseen by an independent person, who has the responsibility of ensuring that the care plan is being properly implemented. These measures will also require action to be taken where none is being taken, and ensure that the case is referred to CAFCASS to take to court where the child has no one else to act on their behalf and it appears that a local authority's action or inaction is breaching the child's human rights.
	These are important steps, which will promote the welfare of children in care, and I commend them to the House.

Robert Walter: I am neither a smart lawyer nor a dim lawyer, just a simple Back Bencher. As a member of the Special Standing Committee, I have followed the Bill through all its proceedings and I feel that we should be looking to make good law that is understandable to those who have to implement it. Before the Bill leaves this place and goes to the House of Lords, where there are some smart lawyers, I would like the Minister to explain, if she can, why it is an improvement on the current wording for amendment No. 260 to insert "(a care plan)" after the word "plan", which seems terribly clumsy, when the following amendment will delete the words
	"(in this Act referred to as a 'care plan')",
	which I would have thought were crystal clear.
	Surely if we are going to mess about with the wording to make it clearer and more understandable, which I hope is the Government's intention, the wording in line 8 should be "prepare a care plan". We know what a care plan is because we have talked about it, defined it and everything else.
	Alternatively, we should leave the wording as it is and the Government should remove their amendments Nos. 260 and 261. It seems unhelpful to the process of better understanding what we are about that we should mess around with the existing wording in proposed new section 31A, on care orders and care plans. The provision had begun to make some sense to me, but if the amendments are accepted it may not make as much sense to those outside this place.

Tim Loughton: We should never let my hon. Friend the Member for North Dorset (Mr. Walter) do himself down by describing himself as a mere Back Bencher; his contribution to the Bill throughout all its stages has been considerable.
	I have little to say about this group of amendments because the subject was largely covered when we discussed the previous group, and new clause 15 in particular. I can only agree with the Minister that in theory, the system that will be put in place is a good one in terms of the regular and ongoing review of care plans. Enabling children to have a say in those plans is an issue that Conservative Members, at least, raised on many occasions in the Special Standing Committee. Children are at the heart of that process, and they have every right to a say in it. In considering the previous group of amendments we debated whether the review should be overseen by an independent person. We also raised various questions concerning the integrity of independence, the reference to CAFCASS, and the fact that action will be taken at the end of the process.
	There is no point in delaying the House further, as we have no objection to the amendments. They are largely consequential on earlier new clauses that the Minister moved, and to which the House agreed.

Jacqui Smith: As I may not have responded as fully as possible to the question that the hon. Member for Canterbury (Mr. Brazier) asked about the sanction, I shall do so now. At the point at which a case is referred to CAFCASS, it can use existing remedies under the Children Act 1989. For example, it can apply for discharge of the care order, or for contact between the child and another person. Under human rights legislation, it can seek to injunct the local authority from taking a particular step, such as removing the child from an established placement. It can also seek a declaration that the local authority's plans are contrary to the child's human rights. That would require those plans to be rethought, and the child might also claim damages in respect of the impact of a local authority's action or inaction. Those are considerable sanctions.
	The answer to the question asked by the hon. Member for North Dorset (Mr. Walter) is that there are two different types of plan. Clause 113 relates to a plan in which a care order is pending, whereas a plan under proposed new section 31A relates to the looking after of a child by the local authority, subject to a care order. After that clarification, I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will feel able to support our amendment.
	Amendment agreed to
	Amendments made: No. 260, in page 64, line 8, after "plan" insert "("a care plan")".
	No. 261, in page 64, line 9, leave out from "child" to end of line.
	No. 262, in page 64, line 10, leave out from "pending" to "the" in line 11.
	No. 263, in page 64, line 20, at end insert—
	'(6) A plan prepared, or treated as prepared, under this section is referred to in this Act as a "section 31A plan"'.—[Jacqui Smith.]

New Clause 16
	 — 
	Amendment of Adoption (Scotland) Act 1978: contravention of sections 29 to 35 of this Act

'After section 29 of the Adoption (Scotland) Act 1978 there is inserted—
	"29A Contravention of sections 29 to 35 of Adoption and Children Act 2002
	(1) A person who contravenes any of the enactments specified in subsection (2) is guilty of an offence and liable on summary conviction to imprisonment for a term not exceeding three months, or a fine not exceeding level 5 on the standard scale, or both.
	(2) Those enactments are—
	(a) section 29(1), (2) and (3) (removal of child placed or who may be placed for adoption),
	(b) sections 31(2)(b), 32(2) and 34(2) (return of child by prospective adopters),
	(c) section 33(1) (removal of child in contravention of placement order),
	(d) section 35(1) (removal of child in non-agency case), and
	(e) section 35(5) (return of child to parent or guardian),
	of the Adoption and Children Act 2002." '—[Jacqui Smith.]
	Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

Clause 101
	 — 
	Effect of certain Scottish orders and provisions

Amendment made: No. 271, in page 53, line 28, after "order" insert—
	'or an order under section 25 of the Adoption (Scotland) Act 1978 (interim adoption orders)'.—[Jacqui Smith.]

Clause 102
	 — 
	Effect of certain Northern Irish orders and provisions

Amendments made: No. 252, in page 54, line 8, after "order" insert—
	'or an order under Article 26 of the Adoption (Northern Ireland) Order 1987 (interim orders)'.
	No. 253, in page 54, line 9, at end insert—
	'( ) An order made under Article 17 or 18 of the Adoption (Northern Ireland) Order 1987 (freeing orders), or the variation or revocation of such an order under Article 20 or 21of that Order, have effect in England and Wales as they have in Northern Ireland'.—[Jacqui Smith.]

Clause 104
	 — 
	Orders made in the Channel Islands or the Isle of Man

Amendment made: No. 247, in page 54, line 30, leave out from "provide" to "any" in line 38 and insert—
	'(a) for a reference in any provision of this Act to an order of a court to include an order of a court in the Isle of Man or any of the Channel Islands which appears to the Secretary of State to correspond in its effect to the order in question,
	(b) for a reference in any provision of this Act to an adoption agency to include a person who appears to the Secretary of State to exercise functions under the law of the Isle of Man or any of the Channel Islands which correspond to those of an adoption agency and for any reference in any provision of this Act to a child placed for adoption by an adoption agency to be read accordingly,
	(c) for a reference in any provision of this Act to an enactment (including an enactment contained in this Act) to include a provision of the law of the Isle of Man or any of the Channel Islands which appears to the Secretary of State to correspond in its effect to the enactment,
	(d) for any reference in any provision of this Act to the United Kingdom to include the Isle of Man or any of the Channel Islands.
	( ) Regulations may modify any provision of this Act, as it applies to any order made, or other thing done, under the law of the Isle of Man or'.—[Jacqui Smith.]

Clause 126
	 — 
	Amendments, transitional provisions, savings and repeals

Jacqui Smith: I beg to move amendment No. 280, in page 71, line 14, after "transitional" insert "and transitory".

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss Government amendments Nos. 295 to 297, 274 to 276, 264, 265, 284, 285, 269, 266, 286, 277, 287, 267, 288, 268, 289, 300, 248, 257, 249, 258, 228, 229, 238 and 242.

Jacqui Smith: We move on to a significant group of amendments, which includes several minor and consequential amendments. Many of them are technical, and some are consequential on amendments that have already been debated. However, this group does include some important provisions in respect of early implementation of certain key areas of the Bill. It is the amendments associated with early implementation on which I would like to concentrate.
	On amendments Nos. 280 and 284 to 289, in Special Standing Committee, hon. Members debated the Government's plans for implementing the important provisions in the Bill. It is clear that we must await the conclusion of Parliament's deliberations on those provisions, and Royal Assent, before firm commitments about implementation can be made. However, I was able to give the Committee some idea of our intentions for implementing the provisions, and I am pleased to return to the matter today.
	As I made clear in Committee, we expect to bring the Bill's main provisions into force in 2004, but we believe that there is a case for taking earlier action on some of them. In Committee, I proposed to introduce on Report any amendments that may be needed to bring the provisions into force before 2004. The amendments before us deliver on that commitment by enabling the Bill's priority changes to the adoption service to be implemented in advance of the Bill as a whole.
	Amendment No. 280 amends clause 126(2), which provides for schedule 4 to have effect. It changes the title of schedule 4 from "Transitional provisions and savings" to "Transitional and transitory provisions and savings". As hon. Members will doubtless be aware, it is necessary to reflect the provisions in schedule 4—which amend the Adoption Act 1976 and the Adoption (Scotland) Act 1978—to allow for early implementation. The provision will be in place for a short time, until the Bill as a whole is fully implemented.
	In Committee, I announced the Government's intention to introduce improved adoption support for new adoptive families from April 2003. Better adoption services will be a key means of ensuring the stability of adoptive placements, and of encouraging more families to come forward to adopt. To underpin the arrangements for improved adoption support for adoptive families and prospective adoptive families, which we will put in place from April 2003, amendment No. 286 therefore inserts a new paragraph 2A into schedule 4. In other words, we are inserting into the 1976 legislation the provisions that are necessary to put in place early implementation of the key provisions, which I outlined in Committee, before we begin implementing the Bill's other provisions. They enable regulations to be made setting out the arrangements that local authorities must make for the provision of adoption support services to prescribed persons as part of the adoption service that they currently maintain under section 1(1) of the Adoption Act 1976. 6.30 pm
	It is our intention to use those powers to place an explicit duty on local authorities to make arrangements to provide adoption support services to adoptive families and prospective adoptive families. From April 2003, adoption support services will be made available to adopted children, children who are to be adopted, adoptive parents, prospective adoptive parents, adoptive siblings and prospective adoptive siblings, regardless of the local authority area in which they live. As we set out in our adoption White Paper, that is important to ensure the success of adoptive placements and to encourage more people to come forward.
	Sub-paragraph (2) of new paragraph 2A provides that the regulations may also require a local authority to carry out an assessment, on request, of the needs of a prescribed person for adoption support services. We will use those powers to require local authorities to assess the needs, on request, of adoptive families and prospective adoptive families for adoption support services as part of this early implementation package. Following such an assessment of needs, regulations will require the local authority to decide whether to provide adoption support services to an individual.
	In many cases, when a local authority goes on to provide adoption support services to an adoptive family following an assessment, it will be appropriate for it to draw up a plan to co-ordinate the provision of those services. Regulations will therefore be used to make it clear when a plan is required. It is also our intention to make regulations under new paragraph 2A setting out requirements for the process of assessing needs and for the provision of adoption support services following an assessment. Those regulations will be similar to those which will be made under subsections (6) and (7) of clause 4 on full implementation of the Bill.
	We are also keen to make early progress on the independent review mechanism, which will be a key means of improving prospective adopters' confidence in the system of adopter assessment and approval and of encouraging more people to come forward to adopt. New paragraph 2B of schedule 4, as inserted by amendment No. 286, amplifies the general regulation-making power in section 9 of the Adoption Act 1976. The new provision is modelled on clause 12 of the Bill and will enable regulations to be made providing for the operation of the independent review mechanism in advance of implementation of the Bill as a whole. As I have made clear, it is intended that the determinations that the independent review mechanism will review during the initial period will be determinations made by adoption agencies about the suitability of prospective adopters.

Andrew Turner: The Minister mentioned new paragraph 2A in amendment No. 286. One of the difficulties with which prospective adopters and siblings often have to deal is that of movement from one local authority to another. The local authorities do not always act in a joined-up manner when dealing with cases in which some of the people involved live in one local authority and some in another. What regulations can the Minister introduce to ensure that local authorities act together in such cases?

Jacqui Smith: I recognise the hon. Gentleman's concerns, and he may be aware that we had considerable discussions in the Special Standing Committee about the process that will be necessary to ensure that the requirement on local authorities to provide adoption support services does not leave a gap between them. The Government have undertaken to work with local government to introduce the necessary regulations to ensure that no gap exists. There will be a clear point at which responsibility for the provision of support to prospective adopters from one local authority ends and at which it begins for another local authority.
	We considered whether it was possible to provide an easy cut-off point. For example, the local authority in whose area the child lived might be responsible for adoption support up to the point at which the adoption happened and the local authority in whose area the child went to live would be responsible after that. I am not sure that it is possible to make such a clear distinction. For example, a child might be receiving an intensive package of support—perhaps because of a disability or special educational needs—and it might be necessary for the original local authority to continue to provide that package after adoption. We are aware of the issues and we will ensure that they are covered in the regulations. Given the Government's intention to ensure that adoption support provides support for families and children and adds stability to placements, I agree with the hon. Gentleman that it is important that people do not fall into the gaps in provision of support. I recognise that that sometimes happens now.
	Regulations will be used to require adoption agencies to offer prospective adopters an independent review of their case where the agency has indicated that it is minded to turn down their application to adopt. It is intended that an independent body will convene a review panel to re-examine the evidence and make a fresh recommendation to the adoption agency. The agency will then be required to consider both its original determination and the determination of the review panel before making its final decision.
	I will now turn to inter-country adoption. We believe that there are strong reasons for giving early effect to the restrictions on bringing children into the United Kingdom. We ordered an urgent review of the law in that area in January 2001 and believe that it would not be right to wait until 2004 to bring the new measures into force. Amendment No. 287 therefore inserts a new paragraph 7A into schedule 4 to the Bill. This paragraph inserts a new section 56A into the Adoption Act 1976, which reflects clause 81 of the Bill, which we discussed earlier today. This will enable the more extensive restrictions on bringing children into the United Kingdom included in clause 81 to be brought into force before the Bill is fully implemented.
	As hon. Members will remember from a few hours ago, under new section 56A, it will be a criminal offence for a British resident to bring a child into the UK for the purposes of adoption unless they comply with prescribed requirements. It is intended that the requirements prescribed in the regulations will, as under the current system, make it a requirement that prospective adopters apply to a local authority or a voluntary adoption agency to be assessed and approved under procedures similar to those followed in domestic adoptions, and then to have a certificate of eligibility issued by the Secretary of State.
	Like clause 81, new section 56A also extends the restrictions to include British residents bringing into the UK a child whom they have adopted outside the British Isles within the preceding six months.

Robert Walter: The Minister will recall that in the Special Standing Committee we had much discussion on this provision with regard to the differing domestic legislation in Scotland and Northern Ireland. Can she assure the House that the regulations will apply equally to all parts of the United Kingdom?

Jacqui Smith: This issue was the subject of some of the amendments that we considered on Thursday. In the Special Standing Committee, we also discussed the fact that Scotland is undertaking a adoption law review and will want to introduce legislation on that subject. The need for the safeguards to be common throughout the country, and for orders made in one part of the UK to be recognised in other parts, will be covered in the necessary secondary legislation.
	I was talking about inter-country adoption. The early implementation of the provisions involved is intended to catch individuals who, to avoid committing an offence in the context of the six-months limit, take a short leave of absence to live outside the British Isles and adopt according to the procedures of the country in which they are living.
	Like the other provisions relating to inter-country adoption, new section 56A will increase the penalties for those found guilty of breaching the restrictions on bringing a child into the country, or causing a child to be brought in. We discussed that issue earlier.
	We believe that the new restrictions applying to electronic advertising are important, and should not be delayed until 2004. Amendment No. 287 inserts into schedule 4 new paragraphs 7B and 7C, which tighten restrictions on advertising in the current legal frameworks for adoption in England, Wales and Scotland. New paragraph 7B makes it clear that the restrictions on advertising in section 58 of the 1976 Act also apply to advertisements on the internet; and it provides an increased penalty on conviction of an offence under that section. The maximum penalty will be three months in prison or a fine of £5,000, or both. New paragraph 7C amends section 52 of the Adoption (Scotland) Act 1978 to make equivalent provision for Scotland.

Henry Bellingham: The Minister mentioned electronic advertising. Obviously we were all concerned about the infamous Kilshaw case, in which people used the internet to obtain information from the United States. The whole sorry saga caused those interested in the subject of adoption considerable grief. What measures can be taken to prevent such people from gaining access to information from abroad? Can these restrictions do it, or are they concerned only with electronic advertising in the British Isles?

Jacqui Smith: As we have established, there are limitations on the extent to which it is possible to restrict information on the internet that is provided by an internet service provider in this country but comes directly from overseas. The Bill, however, makes significant advances in terms of restriction of advertising through the internet. When that is not possible, work can be done through international co-operation and the development of codes of conduct. That should help us to ensure that cases such as that cited by the hon. Gentleman do not occur again.
	Amendment No. 322 is a relatively new addition. It adds a new paragraph 45A to schedule 3, thereby allowing the Adoption (Northern Ireland) Order 1987 to be amended to enable the making of regulations in respect of the registration in the adopted children register in Northern Ireland of convention and overseas adoptions. Article 53 of the order was amended by the Adoption (Intercountry Aspects) Act (Northern Ireland) 2001. The intention was to enable the registrar-general in Northern Ireland to register convention or overseas adoptions if the prescribed requirements were met.
	Article 53(3B) provides for applications for the registration of such adoptions to be made in the prescribed manner by a prescribed person, and to give the prescribed particulars. Article 53(3D) provides for the prescription of requirements that convention or overseas adoptions must meet in order to be registered.
	In article 2(2) of the 1987 order, "prescribed", for the purposes of article 53(3B) and (3D) means, in this context, "prescribed by adoption rules". However, the issues relating to registration that I have just described need to be prescribed in regulations by the department of finance and personnel, which makes regulations for the registrar-general. Amendment No. 322 therefore makes the necessary amendment to article 2(2) of the 1987 order to provide that regulations under article 53(3B) and 53(3D)—

Tim Loughton: I am trying to be helpful. We are discussing a group of 28 amendments, and according to my reckoning the Minister has dealt with three of them, doing terribly well. She is now referring to amendment No. 322, which I cannot see in the group that we are discussing. Which amendment are we actually dealing with now? It is all very confusing.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The hon. Gentleman is right. I do not think the amendment is in this group.

Jacqui Smith: I am sure that hon. Members were enjoying it, but I apologise if I was premature. I was so interested that I thought hon. Members would be as well. I thought this was a good opportunity to discuss the amendment.
	I hope that this will not be a big disappointment, but I think that I have concentrated on the key amendments dealing with early implementation. I did not intend to discuss in detail the other amendments, which are largely technical and consequential. If pushed, I shall of course be willing to talk about them at length.

Tim Loughton: I am glad that someone noticed that we seemed to have strayed slightly, but I am still confused. I cannot find amendment No. 322 anywhere.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Perhaps I can help the hon. Gentleman. The amendment was debated on 20 March.

Tim Loughton: Of course. I am so sorry. How remiss of me, and of the Minister, not to remember that. Let us return to the mere 28 detailed amendments that we have in hand—but perhaps you did not notice either, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that amendment No. 322 was being discussed.
	May we return to amendment No. 280, which I think appeared at the beginning of the Minister's tour d'horizon? There is a certain irony in a group of amendments described as minor drafting and transitional measures, given that amendment No. 280 would replace the words "transitional" with the word "transitory". [Hon. Members: "Oh."] I thought that it was quite amusing, anyway.

Jacqui Smith: I am surprised at the hon. Gentleman, who is usually so accurate. If he looks carefully, he will realise that the amendment would add the word "transitory" rather than substituting it for the word "transitional".

Tim Loughton: I will take the Minister's word for it. In fact, I see that she is right: the amendment would insert the words "and transitory". It is a double whammy. There was a certain irony, all the same.

Henry Bellingham: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Tim Loughton: Indeed. Why not?

Henry Bellingham: Can my hon. Friend tell me the difference, as defined by the dictionary, between "transitional" and "transitory"? Does he know what the technical difference is?

Tim Loughton: No, and I do not particularly care at this stage, although it was helpful of my hon. Friend to raise that important point.
	Perhaps we can proceed to a slightly more substantial amendment, amendment No. 286. The Minister spoke of early implementation of many of the proposals forming the basis of the Bill, with which we agree. We certainly agree with the Minister that many of these things should have happened yesterday, rather than happening at some stage in the future. Her letter of 10 May gave some of the details of early implementation of matters relating to adoption support services in particular, and also to the independent reviewer. I gather that she proposes to do that by adding a new paragraph in schedule 4 and amending the Adoption Act 1976 with insertions.
	The Minister wants early implementation of the independent review of determinations, as covered in amendment No. 286. This part of the Bill refers back to clause 12, on which the guillotine fell in Committee. My hon. Friend the Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Djanogly) was orating on the legal technicalities of the clause when we were cut off without the opportunity of debating some of the substantial amendments to clause 12 that we had tabled. I am also mindful of the fact that neither have we debated clause 12 on Report.
	This is very unsatisfactory. The Minister has acknowledged by her desire to bring forward its implementation that this is an important part of the Bill, yet it has not been debated by the House. It has not been debated in Committee or in this truncated Report stage. The Minister is presuming to implement legislation about which there has been not a word of debate in the House. I hope that the upper House will have something to say about that. The hon. Lady may well be right, in the final account, to bring forward the implementation of these terms, but we wanted to take issue with and raise concerns about certain aspects of the provisions, and we have not had the opportunity to do so. It is a bad day when that happens.
	The Minister talked about publishing the regulations. This has been a constant bugbear of ours. We are debating—although, in some cases, we have not had the opportunity to do so—clauses that rely heavily on regulations that have yet to be drawn up and published. If the implementation timetable is brought forward even further, that means even less time for regulations to be drawn up, consulted on, published and amended if the various practitioners in the field who have to work by them see flaws. We have not had the opportunity to see such flaws because we have not had the opportunity to debate the clauses and we have not had sight of the regulations.
	We heard some pertinent questions from my hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight (Mr. Turner), who, although he did not serve on the Committee, has taken a close interest in the Bill and tabled amendments in Committee. He referred to the territorial gaps when a local authority may maintain a responsibility for special educational provision for children who are adopted and then placed with an adoptive family out of its area. These are big questions and big problems. The Minister acknowledged that, but we do not know the full answer because we have not seen the regulations.
	Similarly, the Minister intends to bring forward some of the regulations on inter-country adoptions and restrictions on bringing children into the United Kingdom. As we heard this evening, when we had an opportunity to debate the relevant provisions, given the Kilshaw example and others of that ilk, there is a great deal of support for such measures. We have reservations because we believe that the restrictions will impact adversely on people bringing children into the country perfectly legitimately from some of the other countries mentioned earlier. Problems may occur because the system has been held up for so long. My hon. Friend the Member for North Dorset (Mr. Walter) mentioned the problems of the provisions applying equally to all parts of the United Kingdom.
	The Minister mentioned the new regulations on electronic advertising. From memory, debate on that part of the Bill was also curtailed in Committee, and we did not vote on it. We need to know exactly how the Minister is intending to marshal the internet. We see in many other pieces of legislation that it is all very well to set down good intentions that can be applied in the United Kingdom, but the internet is international—it is no respecter of boundaries, and we have no authority outside the boundaries of the United Kingdom. It needs rather more than a few regulations saying what is good or bad in the UK, because people are influenced by internet pages beamed into this country, which are outside our territorial remit.

Henry Bellingham: My hon. Friend is right. We were on the cusp of debating these important points in Committee, but were cut short. UK citizens who place an advertisement on the internet through a UK-based internet service provider in this country will be committing an offence, but if they get someone else to do it for them abroad, they will not be. There are all sorts of anomalies in this area, and it is a pity that we could not have debated them in Committee. When the Minister replies to my hon. Friend, she should clarify some of these points.

Tim Loughton: My hon. Friend is right. We are all agreed on the principle and desirability of some of the restrictions that the Government want to impose, but that is worthless unless the practical applications have been thought through.
	I am slightly at a loss; the Minister has spoken to three amendments out of a group of 28. Indeed, she spoke at length to one that is not even in the group, interesting though that was. I should appreciate responses to some of my points. For all I know, there may be similar questions on the amendments to which she has not spoken but for which there is still a little time if she cares to elaborate further.

Jonathan R Shaw: I welcome the bringing forward of support services. The universal determination of right hon. and hon. Members to see the number of children placed for adoption increase was one of the pleasures of serving on the Committee stage of this Bill. We want to meet the target of a 40 per cent. increase, but what happens when those children are placed for adoption? This is not just about targets, throughput and speed—quality support is essential.
	It is essential that local communities have confidence in adoption agencies providing post-adoption support. The dynamics change when a child is placed for adoption. One can only make a best assessment. As we have said a number of times in Committee and on Report, we are not dealing with pure equations. This is a dynamic process. Social workers, the panel and the courts are all involved in the process of adoption and in trying to make a vital decision for a child's future well-being and happiness in their adoptive placement. We know that things change—we do not know what will happen or how a child will react when he or she is placed with prospective adopters.
	The test for adoption agencies is their willingness to respond to the crises, doubts and concerns experienced by the adoptive family and, of course, the child, as has been mentioned time and again. For placements to be successful, that is crucial.

David Hinchliffe: In my constituency, I am dealing with the case of a young man aged 19 who is severely disabled. He was adopted by his adoptive mother two or three years ago, at which time he was eligible for adoption allowances. His mother had to give up work due to the severity of his disability. Her income has been reduced, yet it appears that there are no longer any support mechanisms for him because he is now an adult. Has my hon. Friend come across similar situations, and does he consider that the measure could assist people in those circumstances?

Jonathan R Shaw: My hon. Friend has a wealth of experience in such matters. Indeed, many of the Committee members had swapped corduroys for sharp suits when they entered this place—although my hon. Friend still has the beard; I think that he even has the sandals somewhere in his wardrobe.
	My hon. Friend makes an important point: there are many variables. When we place older children with disabilities and a multitude of behaviour problems, we know that those problems do not end when they come of age. If we are to reach the targets, prospective adopters must feel confident that when they call the social services department or the adoption agency they will not be given the run around once their child becomes an adult. They need to be sure that the response will not be, "I am sorry but you no longer fit into the right bracket and we cannot help you." If that is the word on the street among prospective adopters, we will not hit our targets. All those factors are interdependent.
	The point applies not only to severely disabled children or to those with extreme behaviour problems but also to children who are placed out of area. It is not satisfactory for a particular service to wash its hands of the child and say, "Sorry, you're no longer in our area so we cannot help you". There must be confidence in the system and I am glad that the measure will ensure that proper arrangements are in place.
	Local authorities and adoption agencies have long realised their deficiencies when children from one part of the country are placed in another area. The adoptive parents are expected to trail halfway around the UK to get access to services.

Julian Brazier: The hon. Gentleman makes a powerful point. There is also a wider financial point. It is anomalous that an authority can take a great deal of trouble and spend many thousands of pounds assessing a couple and including them on its list, yet there is no transfer of funding if the couple then adopt a child from another area. One authority does all the work, but another receives the budget relief.

Jonathan R Shaw: My understanding is that there is support through the interplacement fee. If one agency prepares a couple for adoption and a child from another area is placed with them, there is an interplacement fee. My hon. Friend the Minister may correct me when she makes her remarks, but that was certainly my experience.
	Problems arise when local authorities that have invested time and effort are reluctant to allow, or to encourage, prospective adopters to seek children from another part of the country. However, the national register and the consortium arrangements for authorities should stop those restrictive practices, although only time will tell whether they can be completely eradicated.

Julian Brazier: I think that the hon. Gentleman was present when the Special Standing Committee heard testimony from voluntary organisations that they often make an enormous loss on those transfer fees, especially with severely disabled clients. It is much more expensive to scrutinise adoptive parents for such children.

Jonathan R Shaw: The hon. Gentleman refers to a point that I touched on earlier and which was also highlighted by my hon. Friend the Member for Wakefield (Mr. Hinchliffe): it is difficult to place children with severe disabilities or behaviour problems. The BAAF publication "Be My Parent" lists more than 400 children every month and we heard from the BAAF that there is not even one inquiry about half of the boys aged more than five. That is not because they are disabled or have behaviour problems. For understandable reasons, people prefer to adopt babies, but they are in short supply.
	The hon. Gentleman referred to the costs. Prospective adopters for some children are a rarity, but let us hope that we can make some economies of scale in our drive for such adopters—not least as a result of the amendment tabled by my hon. Friend. His proposals would widen the pool, so if there are more prospective adopters there will be economies of scale and the concerns raised by the hon. Member for Canterbury (Mr. Brazier) will be reduced.

Hilton Dawson: My hon. Friend goes to the heart of the Bill when he refers to the fact that adoptive parents will need a huge amount of support if they are to take older young people out of the care system, especially those who have suffered the most distressing experiences of neglect and abuse and whose needs have not been met for many years. Does my hon. Friend agree that the Bill will provide a framework? We have a long way to go in respect of professional development, good practice and regulation so that we can build on its essential elements.

Jonathan R Shaw: My hon. Friend is right: making the step change that we all want in adoptive placements will put heavy demands on local authorities—such as education and social services—that they will not have previously experienced.

David Hinchliffe: Support services are a key aspect of the measure. In the past, I have been concerned that local authorities took the attitude that once an individual was adopted that was the end of the matter. Does my hon. Friend think that we can achieve a sea change in attitudes and a recognition that the local authority has a continuing role, especially as regards the placement of children with special needs? Does he think that we can bring about a revolution in that respect? I remain concerned that we may need regularly to remind local authorities of their responsibilities towards adopted youngsters.

Jonathan R Shaw: I hope that we can achieve that sea change—or revolution; there must certainly be a dramatic change if we are to hit the Government's 40 per cent. target.
	I would be reluctant to start prejudging local authorities because, in the main, all local authorities and adoption agencies think that this is highly desirable legislation, which rings true in terms of the type of child care policies that we want to develop, but it is important that the support services are responsive to a changing dynamic—post-adoption placements. If we get that right, people will have confidence in adoption services and more of our vulnerable children will be placed for adoption.

Jacqui Smith: The hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton) raised several issues in relation to this group of amendments. Indeed, despite being warned, he pressed me to go into a bit more detail on some of these amendments. I hope that he does not regret that.
	I shall first deal with some of the specific points that the hon. Gentleman made. On the distinction between the words "transitional" and "transitory", the use of the word "transitory" is necessary because, as I explained, we need to insert provisions in the Adoption Act 1976 to bring forward the implementation of the provisions on adoption support, independent review and electronic advertising, which I have outlined. Of course the 1976 Act will be repealed under some of the amendments in this group when the Bill is enacted. To that extent, those amendments are transitory: they allow us to carry out the early implementation of those provisions, but for a limited time only, as that is all that is necessary in this case.
	The hon. Gentleman also returned to his oft-stated concern about the lack of detail about the regulations. There is a bit of a conflict between our approaches. We want to ensure that the primary legislation includes the principles necessary to improve the adoption system, while making it clear that, because of precisely the sorts of issue that were raised on numerous occasions in the Special Standing Committee, we need to work with the stakeholders to develop, for example, the framework for adoption support, as well as the detail of the regulations. We have been working on that framework, and I hope that we will soon be able to put it out to consultation.
	It is obvious to an extent that we could not do all that and produce a final version of the regulations before determining the principles and before the consultations and discussions had taken place. It is a function of the Government's consultative and inclusive approach to developing the Bill that we will develop the regulations in close consultation with the stakeholders when we have got through the first stage of agreeing the principles embedded in the legislation.
	The hon. Members for East Worthing and Shoreham and for North-West Norfolk (Mr. Bellingham) referred to internet advertising. Perhaps it would be helpful if I were to clarify the legal position. First, as I suggested earlier, if a United Kingdom internet service provider hosts such an advert from the United States, the United Kingdom ISP would be caught by the restriction. The ISP would have to remove the advert, if they were aware of it; otherwise they would commit an offence. However, if the United Kingdom ISP were just acting as a conduit, it would not be caught. Clause 115(3)(b) deals with ISPs that simply act as a channel, and the same approach has been taken in the Tobacco Advertising and Promotion Bill.
	If the advert came from the European Union, however, the EU e-commerce directive would apply and the rules of the country of origin should apply to internet advertising. Although we may not be able to prosecute, we could certainly take up the issue with the relevant country to ensure that controls are in place.

Robert Walter: The Minister is probably too young to remember the Marine, &c., Broadcasting (Offences) Act 1967, which covered similar concerns that the Government had about advertising coming into the United Kingdom from outside our frontiers, promoting products available in the United Kingdom and influencing consumer decisions in the marketplace. That legislation was singularly ineffective: such radio stations continued to broadcast for some 30 years after its implementation.
	Will the Minister tell us whether an advert for a child or an adoption facility could be placed on the internet and someone could take up that advertisement and totally comply with the Adoption (Intercountry Aspects) Act 1999 and the Bill, so that the adoption itself was legal although the advertisement that started the process was illegal?

Jacqui Smith: The hon. Gentleman is right—I was not even at nursery school when that Act was considered. He makes an important point about whether an illegal advert would necessarily lead to an illegal adoption, but I suggest to him that of course hon. Members are right to be concerned about the extent of our legal powers to control advertising on the internet, but advertising—albeit unsavoury—is but the first part of a process that could lead to an illegal adoption. Important safeguards have been included and strengthened in the legislation: for example, international adverts might be significant in relation to inter-country adoption, and we have put in place the necessary safeguards to ensure that children are protected and that adoptions cannot take place on the basis of dodgy procedures.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Chatham and Aylesford (Jonathan Shaw) rightly emphasised the importance of adoption support. We have had discussions about such support in considering the Bill. All hon. Members recognise the fact, which my hon. Friend ably identified during his contribution, that adoption support services are important not only because they support individual families, prospective adopters and children, but because if people know that they can gain access to those services it can have a positive effect on their willingness to come forward to undertake adoption. For both those reasons, not only is the overall framework that we are developing important, but so is the fact that we are bringing forward that provision earlier.
	As I suggested, I shall skip through some of the other Government amendments. Amendments Nos. 295 to 297 alter schedule 3 and make minor and consequential changes to the Marriage Act 1949 to determine and clarify who can consent to the marriage of a child under 18. As amended, the paragraphs also take account of adoption placements and special guardianship orders.
	Amendment No. 274 corrects a reference in paragraph 23 to schedule 3 which should refer to clause 86, not clause 83. Amendment No. 275 also amends schedule 3 to ensure that orders made under clause 25 are recognised in Scotland and Northern Ireland under section 25 of the Family Law Act 1986. Amendment No. 276 provides that a court in England and Wales cannot make an order under clause 25, including orders varying or revoking a clause 25 order, unless the child is habitually resident or present in England or Wales.
	Amendments Nos. 264 and 268 are consequential on the amendments to care plans. Amendment No. 269 amends paragraph 97 of schedule 3, and paragraph 97 amends section 14(2) of the Care Standards Act 2000. We have concluded that the Bill does not go far enough to deal with adoption offences, all of which can be serious, so we have decided that the offences in the Bill and the regulations made under it, as well as the offences in regulations made under section 1(3) of the Adoption (Intercountry Aspects) Act 1999, should be relevant for determining whether to cancel the registration of an establishment or agency under part II of the 2000 Act, and that is what the amendment delivers.
	Amendment No. 277 is a technical amendment to paragraph 4 of schedule 4. It ensures that when the Adoption Act 1976 is repealed, an adoption agency in England or Wales that is at that time under a duty to provide a progress report to former parents, continues to have that duty. Amendment No. 300 is consequential on amendments to clause 84, which deals with overseas adoptions.
	Amendments Nos. 248 and 249 define "enactment", thereby ensuring clarity of that term in clause 131. Amendments Nos. 257 and 258, together with amendments Nos. 254 and 255, which were discussed on Thursday and earlier today, ensure that references to the word "prescribed" are consistent. The overall approach taken to the use of that term is that in the majority of cases it is obvious from the context whether it means in regulations, rules or an order. However, where that is not the case, the provision informs us of what "prescribed" means. Amendments Nos. 228 and 229 are consequential on amendments Nos. 191 and 192, which were also taken on Thursday. They deal with the relationship between placement orders and orders made under section 8 of the 1989 Act.
	Amendments Nos. 238 and 242 alter clause 135, which relates to commencement. Amendment No. 238 amends subsection (1) to enable clause 124 and new clause 7 to come into force when the Bill receives Royal Assent. Clause 124 amends section 93 of the Local Government Act 2000, enabling grants to be paid to support local authorities, for example to pilot new ways of working in the innovative commissioning of children's services and consortium arrangements. We want to be able to make grants to local authorities for use in the current financial year, which is why we want the provision to commence from the day on which the Bill receives Royal Assent.
	New clause 7 amends section 17 of the 1989 Act, which deals with the provision of accommodation by local authorities for children in need. Given what we said about the importance of the new clause to clearing up the lack of clarity that surrounds the responsibilities of local authorities, it is also vital that that commences when the Bill receives Royal Assent.
	The group of amendments is large and technical, but it does include important provisions to ensure that the Bill works properly. They provide clarity and ensure that the provisions can be commenced and implemented appropriately. On that basis, I hope that hon. Members accept them.
	Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I may have inadvertently misled the House about amendment No. 322. The amendment, which was starred on Thursday 16 May and therefore could not be selected that day, falls within the ambit of the group led by amendment No. 270, which relates to Northern Ireland, Scotland, the Isle of Man and the Channel Islands. That group was debated on Thursday 16 May not on 20 March, as I said earlier. Amendment No. 322 will be put formally this evening.

Schedule 3
	 — 
	Minor and Consequential Amendments

Amendments made: No. 295, in page 82, leave out lines 15 to 43 and insert—
	'2 In subsection (1) for "person or persons specified in subsection (1A) of this section" there is substituted "appropriate persons".
	3 For subsection (1A) there is substituted—
	"(1A) The appropriate persons are—
	(a) if none of paragraphs (b) to (h) apply, each of the following—
	(i) any parent of the child who has parental responsibility for him; and
	(ii) any guardian of the child;
	(b) where a special guardianship order is in force with respect to a child, each of the child's special guardians, unless any of paragraphs (c) to (g) applies;
	(c) where a care order has effect with respect to the child, the local authority designated in the order, and each parent, guardian or special guardian (insofar as their parental responsibility has not been restricted under section 33(3) of the Children Act 1989), unless paragraph (e) applies;
	(d) where a residence order has effect with respect to the child, the persons with whom the child lives, or is to live, as a result of the order, unless paragraph (e) applies;
	(e) where an adoption agency is authorised to place the child for adoption under section 18 of the Adoption and Children Act 2002, that agency or, where a care order has effect with respect to the child, the local authority designated in the order;
	(f) where a placement order is in force with respect to the child, the appropriate local authority;
	(g) where a child has been placed for adoption with prospective adopters, the prospective adopters (insofar as their parental responsibility has not been restricted under section 24(4) of the Adoption and Children Act 2002), in addition to those persons specified in paragraph (e) or (f);
	(h) where none of paragraphs (b) to (g) apply but a residence order was in force with respect to the child immediately before he reached the age of sixteen, the persons with whom he lived, or was to live, as a result of the order.".'.
	No. 296, in page 83, line 6, leave out "by an adoption agency".
	No. 297, in page 83, line 11, leave out from "adoption" to end of line 12.
	No. 35, in page 84, line 8, leave out "or" and insert—
	'sections 1 or 2(4) of the Adoption (Intercountry Aspects) Act 1999 or'.
	No. 36, in page 84, line 14, at end insert—
	'( ) in the entry relating to the Adoption (Intercountry Aspects) Act 1999—
	(i) in the first column, for "Section" there is substituted "Sections 1 and",
	(ii) in the second column, for "Article 9(a) to (c) of" there is substituted "regulations made under section 1 giving effect to" and at the end there is inserted "and functions under Article 9(a) to (c) of the Convention"'.
	No. 313, in page 85, line 12, at end insert—
	'20A In section 11 (restriction on arranging adoptions and placing of children)—
	(a) in subsection (2)—
	(i) for paragraph (a) there is substituted—
	"(a) a registered adoption society (within the meaning of section 2(2) of the Adoption and Children Act 2002)"; and
	(ii) for "section 1" there is substituted "section 3(1)", and
	(b) after subsection (2) there is inserted—
	"(2A) In relation to the provision of any particular service by an adoption society, the reference in subsection (2)(a) to a registered adoption society does not include a voluntary organisation unless it is registered under Part 2 of the Care Standards Act 2000 in respect of that service or a service which, in England, corresponds to that service."
	20B In section 16 (parental agreement to adoption order)—
	(a) in subsection (1)—
	(i) in paragraph (a), sub-paragraph (ii) is omitted, and
	(ii) after paragraph (a) there is inserted—
	"(aa) each parent or guardian of the child has consented under section 19 of the Adoption and Children Act 2002 (advance consent to adoption), has not withdrawn the consent and does not oppose the making of the adoption order;
	(ab) subsection (3A) applies and no parent or guardian of the child opposes the making of the adoption order", and
	(b) after subsection (3) there is inserted—
	"(3A) This subsection applies where—
	(a) the child has been placed for adoption by an adoption agency (within the meaning of section 2(1) of the Adoption and Children Act 2002) with the prospective adopters in whose favour the adoption order is proposed to be made; and
	(b) the child was placed for adoption—
	(i) under section 18 of that Act (placing children with parental consent) with the consent of each parent or guardian and the consent of the mother was given when the child was at least six weeks old; or
	(ii) under an order made under section 20 of that Act (placement orders) and the child was at least six weeks old when that order was made.
	(3B) A parent or guardian may not oppose the making of an adoption order under subsection (1)(aa) or (ab) without the leave of the court.
	(3C) The court shall not give leave under subsection (3B) unless satisfied that there has been a change of circumstances since the consent of the parent or guardian was given or, as the case may be, the order under section 20 of that Act was made.
	(3D) The withdrawal of—
	(a) any consent to the placement of a child for adoption—
	(i) under section 18; or
	(ii) under an order made under section 20,
	of the Adoption and Children Act 2002; or
	(b) any consent given under section 19 of that Act,
	is ineffective if it is given after an application for an adoption order is made.".'
	No. 274, in page 85, line 28, leave out "83" and insert "86(2)".
	No. 314, in page 85, line 32, at end insert—
	'24A Section 52 (restriction on advertisements) is omitted.
	24B In section 53 (effect of determination and orders made in England and Wales and overseas in adoption proceedings), in subsection (2), the words "England and Wales or" are omitted.
	24C After section 53 there is inserted—
	"53A Effect of certain orders made in England and Wales
	(1) An adoption order (within the meaning of section 44(1) of the Adoption and Children Act 2002) has effect in Scotland as it has in England and Wales but as if any reference to the parental responsibility for the child were to the parental responsibilities and parental rights in relation to the child.
	(2) An order made under section 20 of that Act (placement orders), and the variation or revocation of such an order under section 22 or 23 of that Act, have effect in Scotland as they have in England and Wales but as if any reference to the parental responsibility for the child were to the parental responsibilities and parental rights in relation to the child.
	53B Effect of placing for adoption etc. under Adoption and Children Act 2002
	(1) If—
	(a) a child is placed for adoption under section 18 of the Adoption and Children Act 2002 (placing children with parental consent); or
	(b) an adoption agency is authorised to place a child for adoption under that section,
	sections 24 (parental responsibility) and 27(2) to (4) (further consequences of placement) of that Act have effect in Scotland as they have in England and Wales but with the modifications specified in subsection (2).
	(2) Those modifications are—
	(a) in section 24, any reference to the parental responsibility for the child is to be read as a reference to the parental responsibilities and parental rights in relation to the child; and
	(b) in section 27(2), the reference to the court is to be read as a reference to the authorised court.
	53C Further consequences of placement and placement orders
	(1) Subsection (2) applies where—
	(a) a child is placed for adoption under section 18 of the Adoption and Children Act 2002 (placing children with parental consent); or
	(b) an adoption agency is authorised to place the child for adoption under that section.
	(2) No order under subsection (1) of section 11 of the Children (Scotland) Act 1995 (court orders relating to parental responsibilities etc.) of a kind referred to in subsection (2)(c) (residence orders) of that section may be made in respect of the child.
	(3) On the making of an order under section 20 of the Adoption and Children Act 2002 (a "placement order") in respect of a child, any order under subsection (1) of section 11 of the Children (Scotland) Act 1995 of a kind referred to in subsection (2)(c) to (f) (residence orders, contact orders, specific issue orders and interdicts in relation to parental responsibilities) of that section in respect of the child ceases to have effect.
	(4) Where a placement order is in force—
	(a) no such order as is referred to in subsection (3) of this section; and
	(b) no order under section 55 of the Children (Scotland) Act 1995 (child assessment orders),
	may be made in respect of the child.".'
	No. 307, in page 85, line 35, at end insert—
	'25B In section 60 (orders, rules and regulations), after subsection (3) there is inserted—
	"(3A) An order under section 65(2) shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of the Scottish Parliament.".'.
	No. 315, in page 85, line 35, at end insert—
	'25A In section 59 (rules of procedure)—
	(a) in subsection (2)—
	(i) for the words from "in relation to" to "adoption", where it secondly occurs, there is substituted "(except where an order has been made freeing the child for adoption)"; and
	(ii) for the words from "every" to "Act" there is substituted "any person mentioned in subsection (2A)"; and
	(b) after subsection (2) there is inserted—
	"(2A) The persons referred to in subsection (2) are—
	(a) every person who can be found and whose agreement or consent to the making of the order is required to be given or dispensed with under this Act or, if no such person can be found, any relative prescribed by the rules who can be found;
	(b) every person who has consented to the making of the order under section 19 of the Adoption and Children Act 2002 (and has not withdrawn the consent) unless he has given a notice under subsection (4)(a) of that section which has effect;
	(c) every person who, if leave were given under section 16(3B), would be entitled to oppose the making of the order.".'.
	No. 316, in page 86, leave out lines 4 to 7.
	No. 317, in page 86, line 7, at end insert—
	', and
	( ) in the definition of "order freeing a child for adoption", paragraph (a) and the word "and" immediately following that paragraph are omitted.'
	No. 64, in page 86, line 16, leave out from "proceedings)" to end of line 18 and insert—
	'(a) in subsection (1), "(other than proceedings under the Adoption Act 1976)" is omitted,
	(b) in subsection (2)—
	(i) for "the Adoption Act 1976" there is substituted "the Adoption and Children Act 2002",
	(ii) the words following "(a) and (b)" are omitted.'.
	No. 40, in page 86, leave out lines 26 to 29.
	No. 275, in page 88, line 39, at end insert—
	'(ab) an order made under section 25 of the Adoption and Children Act 2002 (contact), other than an order varying or revoking such an order'.
	No. 276, in page 88, line 43, at end insert—
	'(2B) A court in England and Wales shall not have jurisdiction to make an order under section 25 of the Adoption and Children Act 2002 unless the condition in section 3 of this Act is satisfied'.
	No. 322, in page 89, line 15, at end insert—
	'The Adoption (Northern Ireland) Order 1987 (S.I. 1987/2203 (N.I. 22)) 
	45A In Article 2(2) (interpretation), in the definition of "prescribed" for "Articles 54" there is substituted "Articles 53(3B) and (3D), 54".'—[Jacqui Smith.]

Jacqui Smith: I beg to move amendment No. 106, in page 89, line 23, at end insert—
	'( ) after subsection (5) there is inserted—
	"(5A) A local authority foster parent is entitled to apply for a residence order with respect to a child if the child has lived with him for a period of at least one year immediately preceding the application.",'.
	The amendment removes an inconsistency between the Children Act 1989 and the adoption provisions as they relate to local authority foster carers. Under clause 41(4), a local authority foster carer may apply as of right for an adoption order for a child in their care, provided that the child has had his or her home with the foster carer for 12 months. The carers do not need the leave of the court or the permission of the local authority to apply to adopt. However, under clause 109, which relates to section 9 of the 1989 Act, if a child has lived with a local authority foster carer for one year, the carer may apply for a residence order, but needs the leave of the court to make the application. Stakeholders have drawn our attention to that inconsistency. We do not believe that it is right that there should be a leave requirement for residence order applications by foster carers after one year when there is not one for adoption orders, which have greater lifelong implications.
	The amendment removes that minor inconsistency by making specific provision in section 10 of the 1989 Act in respect of residence orders. It makes it clear that the foster carer may apply as of right if a child has been with them for one year, up to the time when the application is made. I hope that the House will support that minor correction.

Tim Loughton: That is fine.
	Amendment agreed to.
	Amendments made: No. 107, in page 91, line 4, leave out from beginning to "or".
	No. 264, in page 91, line 17, leave out "care" and insert "section 31A".
	No. 265, in page 91, line 17, leave out "31A(1)" and insert "31A(6)".
	No. 284, in page 94, line 29, leave out "14" and insert "13".
	No. 285, in page 95, line 3, at end insert—
	'Section 14 (restriction on bringing children into the United Kingdom for adoption) is omitted'.
	No. 269, in page 95, line 21, leave out from "1999" to the end of line 23 and insert—
	'(e) an offence under the Adoption and Children Act 2002 or regulations made under it." '
	No. 266, in page 96, line 11, at end insert—
	In section 12(5) of the Criminal Justice and Court Services Act 2000 (meaning of "family proceedings" in relation to CAFCASS), paragraph (b) (supervision orders under the 1989 Act) and the preceding "and" are omitted'.—[Jacqui Smith.]

Schedule 4
	 — 
	Transitional provisions and savings

Amendments made: No. 286, in page 96, line 40, at end insert—
	'The Criminal Justice and Court Services Act 2000 (c.43) 
	2A (1) The facilities to be provided by local authorities as part of the service maintained under section 1(1) of the Adoption Act 1976 include such arrangements as the authorities may be required by regulations to make for the provision of adoption support services to prescribed persons.
	(2) Regulations under sub-paragraph (1) may require a local authority—
	(a) at the request of a prescribed person, to carry out an assessment of his needs for adoption support services,
	(b) if, as a result of the assessment, the authority decide that he has such needs, to decide whether to provide any such services to him,
	(c) if the authority decide to provide any such services to a person, and the circumstances fall within a description prescribed by the regulations, to prepare a plan in accordance with which the services are to be provided to him and keep the plan under review.
	(3) Subsections (6) and (7) (except paragraph (a)) of section 4 of this Act apply to regulations under sub-paragraph (1) as they apply to regulations made by virtue of that section.
	(4) Section 57(1) of the Adoption Act 1976 (prohibited payments) does not apply to any payment made in accordance with regulations under sub-paragraph (1).
	2B (1) After section 9 of the Adoption Act 1976 there is inserted—
	"9A Independent review of determinations
	(1) Regulations under section 9 may establish a procedure under which any person in respect of whom a qualifying determination has been made by an adoption agency may apply to a panel constituted by the Secretary of State for a review of that determination.
	(2) The regulations must make provision as to the description of determinations which are qualifying determinations for the purposes of subsection (1).
	(3) The regulations may include provision as to—
	(a) the duties and powers of a panel (including the power to recover the costs of a review from the adoption agency by which the determination reviewed was made),
	(b) the administration and procedures of a panel,
	(c) the appointment of members of a panel (including the number, or any limit on the number, of members who may be appointed and any conditions for appointment),
	(d) the payment of expenses of members of a panel,
	(e) the duties of adoption agencies in connection with reviews conducted under the regulations,
	(f) the monitoring of any such reviews.
	(4) The Secretary of State may make an arrangement with an organisation under which functions in relation to the panel are performed by the organisation on his behalf.
	(5) If the Secretary of State makes such an arrangement with an organisation, the organisation is to perform its functions under the arrangement in accordance with any general or special directions given by the Secretary of State.
	(6) The arrangement may include provision for payments to be made to the organisation by the Secretary of State.
	(7) Where the functions of the Secretary of State are exercisable by the National Assembly for Wales, subsections (4) and (6) also apply as if references to an organisation included references to the Secretary of State.
	(8) In this section, "organisation" includes a public body and a private or voluntary organisation".
	(2) In the National Assembly for Wales (Transfer of Functions) Order 1999, in Schedule 1, in the entry for the Adoption Act 1976, after "9" there is inserted "9A".'
	No. 277, in page 97, line 12, leave out "20 and" and insert "19 to".
	Independent review mechanism
	No. 287, in page 97, line 41, at end insert—
	7A (1) For section 56A of the Adoption Act 1976 there is substituted—
	"56A Restriction on bringing children into the United Kingdom
	(1) This section applies where a person who is habitually resident in the British Islands (the "British resident")—
	(a) brings, or causes another to bring, a child who is habitually resident outside the British Islands into the United Kingdom for the purpose of adoption by the British resident, or
	(b) at any time brings, or causes another to bring, into the United Kingdom a child adopted by the British resident under an external adoption effected within the period of six months ending with that time.
	The references to adoption, or to a child adopted, by the British resident include a reference to adoption, or to a child adopted, by the British resident and another person.
	(2) But this section does not apply if—
	(a) the adopters or (as the case may be) prospective adopters are natural parents, natural relatives or guardians of the child (or one of them is),
	(b) the British resident is a step-parent of the child,
	(c) the child is intended to be adopted under a Convention adoption order.
	(3) An external adoption means an adoption, other than a Convention adoption, of a child effected under the law of any country or territory outside the British Islands, whether or not the adoption is—
	(a) an adoption within the meaning of Part IV of this Act, or
	(b) a full adoption (within the meaning of section 39(3A)).
	(4) Regulations may require a person intending to bring, or to cause another to bring, a child into the United Kingdom in circumstances where this section applies—
	(a) to apply to an adoption agency (including an adoption agency within the meaning of section 1 of the Adoption (Scotland) Act 1978 or Article 3 of the Adoption (Northern Ireland) Order 1987) in the prescribed manner for an assessment of his suitability to adopt the child, and
	(b) to give the agency any information it may require for the purpose of the assessment.
	(5) Regulations may require prescribed conditions to be met in respect of a child brought into the United Kingdom in circumstances where this section applies.
	(6) In relation to a child brought into the United Kingdom for adoption in circumstances where this section applies, regulations may, in respect of a case where any requirements imposed by the regulations are not complied with, modify the reference to 13 weeks in section 13(1).
	(7) If a person brings, or causes another to bring, a child into the United Kingdom at any time in circumstances where this section applies, he is guilty of an offence if—
	(a) he has not complied with any requirement imposed by virtue of subsection (4), or
	(b) any condition required to be met by virtue of subsection (5) is not met,
	before that time, or before any later time which may be prescribed.
	(8) A person guilty of an offence under this section is liable—
	(a) on summary conviction to imprisonment for a term not exceeding six months, or a fine not exceeding the statutory maximum, or both,
	(b) on conviction on indictment, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding twelve months, or a fine, or both.
	(9) In this section, "prescribed" means prescribed by regulations and "regulations" means regulations made by the Secretary of State, after consultation with the National Assembly for Wales".
	7B (1) In section 58 of the Adoption Act 1976 (restrictions on advertisements)—
	(a) after subsection (1) there is inserted—
	"(1A) Publishing an advertisement includes doing so by electronic means (for example, by means of the internet).",
	(b) in subsection (2), for the words following "conviction" there is substituted "to imprisonment for a term not exceeding three months, or a fine not exceeding level 5 on the standard scale, or both".
	7C In section 52 of the Adoption (Scotland) Act 1978 (restriction on advertisements)—
	(a) after subsection (1) there is inserted—
	"(1A) Publishing an advertisement includes doing so by electronic means (for example, by means of the internet).",
	(b) in subsection (2), for the words following "conviction" there is substituted "to imprisonment for a term not exceeding three months, or a fine not exceeding level 5 on the standard scale, or both".'
	No. 318, in page 98, line 20, at end insert—
	Advertising—[Jacqui Smith.]

Schedule 5
	 — 
	Repeals

Amendments made: No. 319, in page 99, line 17, at end insert—
	'Adoption (Scotland) Act 1978 (c.28).
	Section 16(1)(a)(ii).
	Section 52.
	In section 53(2), the words "England and Wales or".
	In section 65(1), in the definition of "order freeing a child for adoption", paragraph (a) and the word "and" immediately following that paragraph.'
	No. 65, in page 99, line 18, column 2, at beginning insert—
	'In section 71(1) the words "(other than proceedings under the Adoption Act 1976)".
	In section 71(2) the words following "(a) and (b)".'.
	No. 41, in page 99, line 20, column 2, at beginning insert—
	'In section 1(8), the words following "section 50"'.
	No. 267, in page 99, line 40, column 2, at end insert—
	'In section 26(2)(e) and (f), the words "to consider"'.
	No. 42, in page 100, line 18, column 2, at end insert "Section 7(3).'
	No. 288, in page 100, line 18 column 2, at end insert "Section 14".
	No. 268, in page 100, line 29, column 2, at beginning insert—
	'Section 12(5)(b) and the preceding "and"'.
	No. 289, in page 100, line 30, at end insert—
	'This Act.
	In Schedule 4, paragraphs 2A, 2B, 7A, 7B, and 7C.'
	No. 300, in page 100, line 30, at end insert—
	'This Act.Section 84(3A).'.—[Jacqui Smith.]

Clause 127
	 — 
	Orders, rules and regulations

Amendment made: No. 234, in page 71, line 32, at end insert—
	'( ) A statutory instrument containing regulations under section 61(2) made by the Scottish Ministers is to be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of the Scottish Parliament.
	( ) The power of the Department of Health, Social Services and Public Safety to make regulations under section 61(2) is to be exercisable by statutory rule for the purposes of the Statutory Rules (Northern Ireland) Order 1979 (S.I. 1979/1573 (N.I. 12)); and any such regulations are to be subject to negative resolution within the meaning of section 41(6) of the Interpretation Act (Northern Ireland) 1954 as if they were statutory instruments within the meaning of that Act.'.—[Jacqui Smith.]

Clause 128
	 — 
	Rules of procedure

Amendment made: No. 226, in page 72, line 32, leave out from "19" to end of line 33 and insert—
	'(and has not withdrawn the consent) unless he has given a notice under subsection (4)(a) of that section which has effect'.—[Jacqui Smith.]

Clause 129
	 — 
	Supplementary and consequential provision

Amendments made: No. 91, in page 73, line 3, at end insert—
	'or of Her Majesty to make an Order in Council by virtue of section 116'.
	No. 92, in page 73, line 10, at end insert—
	'In relation to an Order in Council, "enactment" in this subsection includes an enactment comprised in, or in an instrument made under, an Act of the Scottish Parliament'.—[Jacqui Smith.]

Clause 130
	 — 
	Offences by bodies corporate and unincorporated bodies

Amendments made: No. 235, in page 73, line 26, at end insert—
	'( ) Proceedings for an offence alleged to have been committed under this Act by an unincorporated body are to be brought in the name of that body (and not in that of any of its members) and, for the purposes of any such proceedings in England and Wales or Northern Ireland, any rules of court relating to the service of documents have effect as if that body were a corporation.
	( ) A fine imposed on an unincorporated body on its conviction of an offence under this Act is to be paid out of the funds of that body.
	( ) If an unincorporated body is charged with an offence under this Act—
	(a) in England and Wales, section 33 of the Criminal Justice Act 1925 and Schedule 3 to the Magistrates' Courts Act 1980 (procedure on charge of an offence against a corporation);
	(b) in Northern Ireland, section 18 of the Criminal Justice Act (Northern Ireland) 1945 and Schedule 4 to the Magistrates' Courts (Northern Ireland) Order 1981 (procedure on charge of an offence against a corporation),
	have effect in like manner as in the case of a corporation so charged.'.
	No. 236, in page 73, line 27, after "body" insert "(other than a partnership)".
	No. 237, in page 73, line 31, at end insert—
	'( ) Where an offence under this Act committed by a partnership is proved to have been committed with the consent or connivance of, or to be attributable to any neglect on the part of, a partner, he as well as the partnership is guilty of the offence and liable to be proceeded against and punished accordingly.'.—[Jacqui Smith.]

Clause 131
	 — 
	General interpretation, etc.

Amendments made: No. 248, in page 74, line 12, at end insert—
	"'enactment' includes an enactment comprised in subordinate legislation".
	No. 257, in page 74,, leave out lines 24 and 25.
	No. 272, in page 74,, leave out lines 35 and 36.
	No. 47, in page 74, line 48, at end insert—
	'( ) Any power conferred by this Act to prescribe a fee by Order in Council or regulations includes power to prescribe—
	(a) a fee not exceeding a prescribed amount,
	(b) a fee calculated in accordance with the Order or, as the case may be, regulations,
	(c) a fee determined by the person to whom it is payable, being a fee of a reasonable amount.'.—[Jacqui Smith.]

Jacqui Smith: I beg to move amendment No. 227, in page 74, line 49, leave out subsection (2).
	This amendment covers the definition of where a child has his home or is placed and responds to a point raised in Committee by the hon. Member for North Dorset (Mr. Walter), which I undertook at the time to consider.
	Clause 131 sets out the correct interpretation of various terms used in the Bill. Currently, subsection (2) provides that, in determining where a child has his home or is to be placed, any temporary absence by the child at school, hospital or elsewhere is to be disregarded. The hon. Member for North Dorset was keen to ensure that the courts could also discount temporary absences by the adoptive applicants in determining where a child has his home or is placed. We have looked at this matter, and we agree that it is important to provide the flexibility sought by the hon. Gentleman, to ensure that temporary absences by other parties, such as the adoptive applicants, could be excepted where appropriate.
	The advice that we have received is that the most flexible way of doing that would be to remove subsection (2) entirely, which would leave the question of where a child had his home and with whom as an issue of fact to be determined by the court in each case. Advice to me suggests that the current subsection (2), which dates from the Adoption Act 1976, is unnecessary and might indeed have a restrictive effect on references to a place where a child has his home that are not covered by the exceptions listed. That would also be a risk with any amendment that attempted to exclude temporary absences by the adopters on the same basis.
	The case law on "had his home" has it that this is a matter of fact to be determined in each case. It presumes regular occupation with some degree of permanency, but does not require continuous presence. It allows the court to take account of, and disregard when appropriate, any temporary absence for whatever reason by the child or any other party, but also enables the court to consider, rightly, the impact of any very lengthy absence. Government amendment No. 227 therefore seeks to deliver the same objective as the amendments tabled by the hon. Gentleman in Committee, but in a more effective manner.
	On that basis, I hope that the House will feel able to support the amendment.

Robert Walter: I thank the Minister for acknowledging that Back Benchers can table amendments in Committee that have substance, and that the Government can take them away and bring them back for consideration before the House.
	Amendment agreed to.
	It being four hours after the commencement of proceedings on consideration of the Bill, Mr. Deputy Speaker, pursuant to Order [16 May], put forthwith the Questions necessary for the disposal of business to be concluded at that hour.
	Amendment proposed: No. 158, in page 74, line 51, at end insert—
	'(2B) In this Act, a couple means—
	(a) a married couple, or
	(b) two people (whether of different sexes or the same sex) living as partners in an enduring family relationship.
	(2C) Subsection (2B)(b) does not include two people one of whom is the other's parent, grandparent, sister, brother, aunt or uncle.
	(2D) References to relationships in subsection (2C)—
	(a) are to relationships of the full blood or half blood or, in the case of an adopted person, such of those relationships as would exist but for the adoption, and
	(b) include the relationship of a child with his adoptive, or former adoptive, parents,
	but do not include any other adoptive relationships.
	(2E) For the purposes of this Act, a person is the partner of a child's parent if the person and the parent are a couple but the person is not the child's parent'.—[Mr. Hinchliffe.]
	Amendment proposed to the proposed amendment: (a), Line 3, leave out—
	'whether of different sexes or the same sex'
	and insert "of different sexes".—[Mr. Lansley.]

Question put, That the amendment be made:—
	The House divided: Ayes 174, Noes 301.

Question accordingly negatived.
	Amendment No. 158 agreed to.
	Amendment made: No. 273, in page 74, line 51, at end insert—
	'(2A) In this Act, "Scottish adoption agency" means—
	(a) a local authority, or
	(b) a voluntary organisation providing a registered adoption service;
	but in relation to the provision of any particular service, references to a Scottish adoption agency do not include a voluntary organisation unless it is registered in respect of that service or a service which, in Scotland, corresponds to that service.
	Expressions used in this subsection have the same meaning as in the Regulation of Care (Scotland) Act 2001 (asp 4) and "registered" means registered under Part 1 of that Act'.—[Jacqui Smith.]

Clause 132
	 — 
	Devolution: Wales

Amendments made: No. 281, in page 75, line 2, leave out "reference" and insert—
	'references to the Adoption Act 1976 and'.
	No. 282, in page 75, line 3, leave out from "1999" to second "as" and insert—
	'are to be treated as referring to those Acts'.
	No. 283, in page 75, line 6, leave out "that reference" and insert "those references".—[Jacqui Smith.]

Schedule 6
	 — 
	Glossary

Amendments made: No. 249, in page 102, line 4, at end insert—
	'enactment . . . section 131'.
	No. 258, in page 102, leave out line 21.
	No. 228, in page 102, line 21, at end insert—
	'prohibited steps order . . . section 8(1) of the 1989 Act'.
	No. 229, in page 102, line 32, at end insert—
	'specific issue order . . . section 8(1) of the 1989 Act'.—[Jacqui Smith.]

Clause 135
	 — 
	Commencement

Amendments made: No. 238, in page 75, line 16, after "except" insert—
	'section 124, [Accommodation of children in need etc]'.
	No. 239, in page 75, line 20, at end insert—
	'( ) Before making an order under subsection (1) bringing sections 114 and 115 into force, the Secretary of State must also consult the Scottish Ministers and the Department of Health, Social Services and Public Safety'.
	No. 240, in page 75, line 20, at end insert—
	'( ) Before making an order under subsection (1) bringing sections 116 to 120, section [Use of an organisation as agency for payments] and section [Territorial application] into force, the Secretary of State must also consult the Scottish Ministers'.
	No. 241, in page 75, line 21, leave out subsections (3) and (4) and insert—
	'(3) The following are to come into force on such day as the Scottish Ministers may by order appoint—
	(a) section 40(5) to (9), so far as relating to Scotland,
	(b) sections 121, 122 and [Amendment of Adoption (Scotland) Act 1978: contravention of sections 29 to 35 of this Act],
	(c) paragraphs 20 to 26 and 74 to 76 of Schedule 3,
	(d) paragraphs 7C, 12A and 15 of Schedule 4,
	(e) the entries in Schedule 5, so far as relating to the provisions mentioned in paragraphs (c) and (d),
	(f) section 126, so far as relating to the provisions mentioned in the preceding paragraphs'.
	No. 242, in page 75, line 27, after "63" insert—
	'paragraphs 13, 57, 58, 100, 101 and 102 of Schedule 3 and paragraphs 2A and 2B of Schedule 4'.—[Jacqui Smith.]

Clause 136
	 — 
	Extent

Amendments made: No. 243, in page 75, line 35, leave out "40(5) to (9)".
	No. 244, in page 75, line 35, after "61(2) to (5)" insert—
	'63(2)(a) and (b) and (2A)'.
	No. 245, in page 75, line 37, leave out subsection (4) and insert—
	'( ) The following extend also to Scotland—
	(a) sections 40(5) to (9),
	(b) sections 116 to 120, section [Use of an organisation as agency for payments] and section [Territorial application],
	(c) section [Proceedings in Great Britain],
	(d) section 126, so far as relating to provisions extending to Scotland.'.
	No. 246, in page 75, line 39, leave out "paragraph 15 extends" and insert—
	'paragraphs 12A and 15 extend'.—[Jacqui Smith.]

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Will hon. Members who are leaving the Chamber please do so quickly and quietly, so that we can get on with Third Reading?
	Order for Third Reading read.

Jacqui Smith: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
	We have had more than two days of valuable and constructive debate on the Report stage of the Bill, conducted in the positive spirit that has characterised the Bill's passage up to this point. Since the Bill was introduced last October, we have had wide-ranging debates on its principles and on the detailed provisions.
	The Bill was referred to a Special Standing Committee, which gave Members the opportunity to hear from key stakeholders in the adoption community and acknowledged experts in the field. That consultative approach was a very positive experience, and it provides an example for the future. Following the evidence sessions, the Bill was considered in detail by the Special Standing Committee. I am extremely grateful to my hon. Friends, particularly those who brought their considerable expertise to the Committee. May I say what a pleasure it was to be surrounded by so many ex-social workers? Other hon. Members brought to the proceedings important experience of constituency casework and even personal experience of adoption. It was invaluable to take part in such an informed debate, and the Bill has undoubtedly benefited from it.
	Throughout the process we have had as our focus the aim of ensuring that all children have the best start in life. Adoption can have an important role in providing a new start for many children, and can make the difference between a child having a loving, stable and permanent family or being left in the care of the local authority.
	The Bill overhauls the outdated Adoption Act 1976 and modernises the whole existing legal framework for domestic and inter-country adoption. It is over a quarter of a century since the legislative framework was last reviewed, and I hope that the Bill will set out a new framework that will last well into this century.
	The Bill tackles the issues that have troubled the adoption service for many years. The fundamental change that it makes, which is welcomed on both sides of the House and by stakeholders, is that it puts the needs of the child at the centre of the adoption process. It also recognises that adoption, while bringing great joy and satisfaction to many people, is a tough job. It will help to ensure that the support that adopters and children need is available by providing for the first time a duty on local authorities to put in place a range of adoption support services.
	The Bill will help to cut harmful delays through the introduction of the Adoption and Children Act register and through timetabling of court proceedings. Importantly, as we have heard today, the Bill strengthens the safeguards around adoption, inter-country and domestic, and introduces a new special guardianship order to provide permanent families for children for whom adoption is not appropriate.
	In Committee, genuine concerns were raised and suggestions were made about areas in which the Bill could be improved. We listened to those, and as a result we have been able to make changes as the Bill has made its way through the House. On access to information, concerns were expressed about the access for adopted persons to information that would enable them to obtain a copy of their original birth certificate. In light of those comments I tabled amendments to ensure that information from adoption agencies, which is required to access birth records, will be provided. With the amendments made on Report, the Bill will now put in place a system for disclosure of information about adoption that is both comprehensive and fair.
	Considering the sensitivity about adoption, it is not surprising that there was concern about consent. It was felt that the provision stating that consent had to be given freely did not reflect the fact that, although birth parents may know that adoption is best for the child, coming to this decision means struggling against their own feelings. Although we have not had time to debate that, we have listened to those concerns and amended the Bill to reflect that.
	Today we made amendments to enable social services to provide accommodation or the means to secure it. I am pleased that the Bill establishes local authority powers in this area beyond doubt. We have ensured that the care planning process, which is so important for children, is placed on a statutory basis with proper independent review.
	The impact of domestic violence on the child has not been fully considered when courts consider granting contact orders under the Children Act 1989. In response, we tabled an amendment on Report to extend the definition of "harm" in the Act to make it clear that it includes any harm that a child may suffer or is at risk of suffering as a result of witnessing the ill-treatment of another. As hon. Members will have noted on Thursday, that was due to the work of several of my hon. Friends, but also to a willingness to respond on the part of the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department, my hon. Friend the Member for Doncaster, Central (Ms Winterton). She should be congratulated not only on that, but on her efforts throughout the Bill's progress.
	While the Bill was in Committee, the Scottish Executive signalled that they wished to be able to participate in the Adoption and Children Act register. On Report, we tabled the necessary amendments to enable that to happen. The inclusion of Scotland in the register will benefit children and adopters throughout England, Scotland and Wales, and will provide an extensive infrastructure for finding families for children who need them.

Jonathan R Shaw: I fully concur with my hon. Friend's comments about the Parliamentary Secretary. Will she join me in paying tribute also to my hon. Friend the Member for Luton, South (Margaret Moran), who campaigned for those amendments to the Bill? The response from the Parliamentary Secretary was testimony to my hon. Friend's battle and to her work to bring together all manner of stakeholders to achieve that welcome change in the law.

Jacqui Smith: Certainly I commend, as the Parliamentary Secretary did on Thursday, my hon. Friend the Member for Luton, South (Margaret Moran) and others for their work and their approach to this important issue. I also pay tribute to other hon. Members, on the Standing Committee and in the House, who have not always made my life easy but have worked very hard to ensure that the concerns of stakeholders are expressed and reflected in the Bill.
	The free votes on amendments concerning unmarried couples showed that there was significant support for a change to current legislation. The amendments tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Wakefield (Mr. Hinchliffe), and supported by the House, help us in our aim to give more vulnerable children the chance of the permanent, secure and stable family life that adoption can provide. As I promised on Thursday, in the other place we will table the necessary amendments to the rest of the Bill to deal with any legal and technical implications of that change. The Bill now moves on for consideration by the other place. I am confident that it goes there in an improved state thanks to the work that we have done here.
	The Government are determined to press on with our programme to restructure and improve adoption services. Unlike the 1976 Act, it will certainly not be more than 10 years before this Bill is implemented. Once it has gone through its remaining stages and received Royal Assent, we intend to bring its main provisions into force in 2004. However, as we have discussed today, it is important that some measures are introduced before that. The new framework for adoption support services and financial support will be brought into effect in 2003, as will the independent review mechanism in respect of adopter assessment.
	The restrictions on bringing children into the UK should be brought into force as soon as possible, and they will be implemented in advance of the rest of the Bill. We therefore intend to bring these provisions into force in advance of the rest of the Bill. As part of the package of safeguards to be put in place for children, we intend in 2002 to amend section 58 of the 1976 Act to make it clear that the restrictions on advertising of adoption services cover electronic advertising.
	Ensuring that the Bill is passed is, of course, only the first step. Once it receives Royal Assent, the real work to make changes on the ground will begin. We intend to continue the consultative approach that we have taken throughout progress on the Bill. We will hold full public consultations on each set of regulations and consult widely on the detail of the rules to be made under the Bill.
	In conclusion, I am pleased with how far we have come with the Bill, whose aim is to ensure that all children have the best start in life. I hope that the Bill that we now have as a result of our efforts provides the very best start that we can give and makes our contribution to that crucial change.

Tim Loughton: At last we have reached the relative calm of Third Reading. I am glad that we have sufficient time for all hon. Members who served on the Committee to contribute. I urge the hon. Member for Chatham and Aylesford (Jonathan Shaw) to feel free to intervene on me; he will get a positive response.
	It seems only yesterday that we started the Committee stage. The ability to hear witnesses was a good innovation, as the Minister said. More than 30 expert witnesses gave us their views, but the problem was that we did not have much time between listening to them and starting the Standing Committee procedure proper. There were 24 Standing Committee sittings, ending on 17 January, and there was an abortive start to the Report stage—all two hours of it—on 20 March.
	Today and last Thursday we have seen a mêlée of 319 amendments—320 if one includes amendment No. 322, which crept back in for a repeat performance—and 16 new clauses. Many of those proposals have had to be agreed to when a guillotine has come down, as you will know, Mr. Deputy Speaker; you and your colleagues in the Chair have often sounded like up-market bingo callers as the knife comes down. All that came on top of the 270 amendments and 17 new clauses that were debated—again, the time was curtailed—in Committee.
	We have covered everything from adoption support services to the implications of the sperm of Members of the House of Lords for adoption law, and from CAFCASS to terminology in respect of British colonies, or rather British overseas territories, as they should now be called. We have certainly had an extensive debate before waving this Bill off to the upper House, although I suspect that a welcoming party may greet its return to this House.
	We have had an extensive debate, but I fear that it has been curtailed on too many occasions. I do not think that there was any need for a programme motion on the Bill, which had cross-party support. It was radical in terms of updating the 1976 legislation with the introduction of some very positive measures, many of which we agreed with. In Committee, the programme motion meant that 43 clauses were completely untouched by debate, seven clauses were unfinished and two whole schedules were not debated—measures that amounted to a third of the Bill.
	As I said, much of that provision has not been debated on Report, either, which is a shame. On Thursday we failed to finish discussing 62 amendments on the operation of placement orders, eight amendments and new clause 5 on arrangements for adoption at birth, 11 amendments on contact, 17 amendments on special guardianship orders, 25 amendments and three new clauses on unmarried couples, on which many other hon. Members wanted to speak, and so on. Today we have made slightly better progress, largely because the issues were less contentious. Even so, we have had to get through 63 amendments and four new clauses.
	So much has been left unscrutinised. I am sure that interested parties outside the House will wonder why everything had to be crammed into Committee in two months only for us then to twiddle our thumbs for the subsequent four months and then cram 319 amendments and 17 new clauses into only two days and two hours—but alas, that is the way Parliament works.
	I wish the Bill well in the upper House. It will continue to enjoy the Opposition's support, as it has done throughout its passage. As the Minister said, we have achieved an awful lot. The number of Government amendments tabled on Report shows that the Government have been willing to make many changes. To give them credit, they have responded to many of the concerns that we expressed in Committee, including those relating to the three-year limitation, which we discussed earlier, and to CAFCASS support services, and also the latest spectacular hit by my hon. Friend the Member for North Dorset (Mr. Walter) in relation to the addresses of adopted children.
	All those contributions were positive and I am grateful to the Minister for graciously attributing some of those proposals—if not all of them—to us. We had some very good debate and good Back-Bench engagement on both sides of the House, which is welcome. At least, that has been the case when Labour Members have not been trying to outdo each other on the subject of how many years they served as social workers before coming to this place; we have been up against exceedingly competitive Government Back Benchers. None the less, it has all been done in good humour, greatly enhanced by the Minister's flow charts—although I regret to say that those have failed to make a reappearance on Report.
	The Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department, the fragrant hon. Member for Doncaster, Central (Ms Winterton)—alas, she is not present for the finish of our proceedings—made very welcome offers to write to us, as she has done at length on many occasions in response to matters raised in Committee. The recent letters that we have received from both Ministers on speeding up adoption support services and on independent review mechanisms show that the Government have listened, which is to be welcomed.
	We have also enjoyed the great expertise of the hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy (Mr. Llwyd), even if he has yet to honour his offer of a bottle of wine in the contest for the best pronunciation of his constituency. Of course, this is his last opportunity not to welsh on that deal.
	I also pay tribute to my colleagues. My hon. Friend the Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Djanogly), speaking in his debut performance in Committee, made serious contributions made from a legal perspective, drawing on his background. My hon. Friend the Member for North Dorset has great experience in this field and scored more hits than other Opposition Members put together in getting his amendments accepted. My hon. Friend the Member for North-West Norfolk (Mr. Bellingham) brought his own characteristic and idiosyncratic—but most entertaining and informed—contribution to the debate. I pay particular tribute to the speaking Whip, my hon. Friend the Member for Canterbury (Mr. Brazier), who is more of an expert on adoption than most of us. We have all greatly benefited from his expertise and experience, and from his knowledge of many cases, reflecting just about every clause, all of which seem to have happened in his constituency; it all happens in Canterbury.
	It is also fitting that we should pay tribute to the enormous amount of work done by the Minister's officials at the Department of Health, and to Tom Goldsmith, the Clerk to this Bill, who has given enormous help on the technical and tricky matters with which it deals. Of course, it would also be churlish of me not to say that the Liberals have also made the occasional appearance.
	I have learned a lot about the subject of the Bill during the past few months. All of us have had experiences of constituents affected by adoption, and many of us have been greatly touched by them. We are also grateful for all the input from pressure groups, including the Adoption Forum and Liv O'Hanlon, the National Organisation for Counselling Adoptees and Parents and Pam Hodgkins, who campaigned so hard on the retrospective nature of the legislation, the Children's Society and Julia Feast, the women's refuges, and the Catholic Children's Society and Jim Richards. All of them are mentioned in Hansard.
	We have achieved an awful lot in the Bill, of which all of us can be proud. That is why we are very happy to support it, even if it came slightly late in the day. We should also pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Meriden (Mrs. Spelman), who promoted her own private Member's Bill on adoption and kick-started the Government process that resulted at last in the introduction of the Bill before us.
	The Bill is much more than parts of part 1 chapter 3, especially clause 47, and the question of who should be allowed to adopt. Most of us, on whatever side of argument, would agree that it is a great pity that the media have focused only on that aspect of the Bill, which has dominated all the headlines as if it were the only issue at stake in a Bill with 137 clauses and six schedules. I am sure that that subject will be revisited in another place, but I hope that the media and the world outside will take a more balanced view of the Bill and everything else that it contains.
	There is wide agreement that clause 1(2) lies at the heart of the Bill. It states:
	"The paramount consideration of the court or adoption agency must be the child's welfare, throughout his life."
	We have all have kept that very much at heart while we have been dealing with all the clauses and amendments, and quite rightly so. Principal to our consideration was the axiom that a father and a mother are best for a child, even if we have a debate about their marital status, and even if that situation is not always achievable.
	The overriding consideration must be how we can help the 58,000 children who are looked after in care at the moment. That figure has risen alarmingly recently—by some 17 per cent. over the last few years. We must also consider the increasing complexity and complications involved, and the severe learning and behavioural requirements of some of those children. Only about 200 of the children adopted are babies.
	There is currently an enormous amount of delay and bureaucracy in the system, and there are many shortcomings in the support available for damaged children, for vulnerable families and their relatives, and for the willing adopters, of whom we need many more. We need to speed up the process, and to increase the number of volunteers from 3,000 to at least 5,000, perhaps 8,000, in the next few years.
	We also need to ensure that adoptions work first time, and are good quality placements that will give the best prospects for a second chance to those damaged children. The hon. Member for Chatham and Aylesford is right: this is not just about targets. It is about quality placements for individuals, every one of whom has a real life experience and a real life problem that needs to be addressed. They are not just numbers.
	The Minister was right to say that the real work of the Bill will begin when it becomes law. This is not just a question of banning something or making something illegal, as are many other pieces of legislation. This is about starting an enormous process to set up new structures, and to ensure that those structures work so that the Bill can achieve what we all agree that it should achieve.
	We have made great progress in certain areas. On clause 1, we may have arguments about welfare considerations being put above political correctness, but we all agree that we need to avoid delay. The adoption support services are an enormous benefit of the Bill, because the key to a good adoption is to provide support, understanding and information before, during and after adoption, continuing until the child reaches adulthood. That involves dealing with education, behavioural problems, housing and general health.
	The principle of the Bill is absolutely right, but the proof of the pudding will be in the eating, because the principle will be worthless unless local authorities—which will have responsibility for many of these services—are properly resourced. I argue with the Government over the resourcing levels of social services, because there is still an enormous £1 billion gap in social services departments' funding throughout the country, and the biggest increase in that shortfall has been in children's services. That is where social services are the most stretched, and where there is the biggest shortage of skilled professional children's workers.
	We have expressed the fear before that local authorities often have to retrench to their statutory responsibilities simply because they do not have the resources and the manpower to go round. That is why we were so keen that so many of the provisions in the Bill should be a requirement rather than an optional extra that local authorities could opt out of even if they did not want to, because many of them are really stretched.
	We have achieved a lot with regard to greater clarity in the legal process relating to placement and adoption orders. It is essential that all parties know what to expect of the system, what their rights and responsibilities are, and how they can reverse the process if they have a change of heart. The better independent review panel is also to be welcomed, although we still have concerns about how it will operate.
	We shall not go back over the discussions about disclosure of information, but it was enormously welcome when, after the Christmas break, the Government had a change of heart on this issue. We had all found it a complete mystery that they had sought to retreat from the provision in the Adoption Act 1976 concerning providing information to birth parents and to children trying to find their birth parents. We still think that these measures should be retrospective, particularly to give an older generation of women what will probably be their last chance to find the children whom they gave away for adoption, often under enormous pressure, back in the 1940s and 1950s in an adoption climate very different from the one that exists now. I know that the Minister addressed the amendments that we, and the hon. Member for Cardiff, West (Kevin Brennan), tabled the other day, but this is still a serious problem.
	We have improved the provisions for disclosure of information on many other fronts, particularly the disclosure of information before an adoption is effected. The Government responded to our concerns, not so much in the Bill but with regard to regulations, which will provide that as much information as possible should be made available to prospective adoptive parents before they make the decision to adopt, so that the right decision can be made.
	There have been improvements to the provisions for the adopted children register, and the adoption contact register has been put on a statutory footing. There are still problems with inter-country adoptions, as my hon. Friend the Member for Canterbury mentioned earlier. That is a matter that will go on exercising our minds. I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Luton, South (Margaret Moran) and to the fact that there is a response in the Bill to issues of domestic violence, which we all wanted. There is still a long way to go on that, but this is a useful first step.
	It is right to improve the provisions on offences relating to people running adoption services without being properly authorised, or bringing children into the country without the right to do so, in very unpleasant circumstances. The innovation of special guardianship orders is another positive aspect of the Bill which we did not get to debate at length, but which, by and large, has widespread support.
	In conclusion, we have achieved an awful lot. It is increasingly important that this legislation should go through swiftly and be put into effect properly and practically. A short time ago, the horrific case of Victoria Climbié, and the case of John Smith in my constituency a couple of years ago, brought home to us just how many gaps there are in child support services, and how there are still too many vulnerable people out there whom the system has failed. Such horrendous failures must not be allowed to happen again.
	There is much good in the Bill. It is good that the Government have listened in many cases. It would be even better if they listened a little more to the questions that will arise in the upper House. I shall finish, as the Minister did, by saying that the Bill is intended to reach, and to a great degree succeeds in reaching, the target of giving all children, particularly those who have had a damaged beginning in difficult circumstances, the best start in life.

Meg Munn: I particularly welcome the Bill, and it has been a pleasure to be involved with it during my first year in Parliament. Sometimes it is hard to believe that, only 18 months ago, I was in the position of making exactly the kind of decisions dealt with in the Bill. They were some of the most important and difficult decisions that I made during my social work career.
	I have always been a strong advocate for adoption. It is not the answer for all children, but it is a positive option for very many. I was in social work for a long time—I shall spare the House the details of the length of time, because this is not a game about who has been in social work the longest—and I also know that many children experience problems, particularly in their teenage years. It is important for us not only to provide support for those children and their families, but to do so in a way that does not stigmatise. The Bill does a lot to put in place adoption services that will be there for children and their families and will take away the stigma and the concern that so many families experience that asking for help may mean admitting failure or the risk of a child feeling insecure, or that they might again end up in care.
	Some of those services are particularly important at this stage, because many of the children looking for placements today have enormous psychological and emotional difficulties, and if support can be provided to them and their families, there is a much better chance that they will find appropriate adoptive placements.
	It was a particular pleasure in Committee to hear Members of all parties arguing for more resources for social services—of which I have of course been a supporter for many years. Unlike some Opposition Members, however, I would say that the Government have done a great deal for social services. The extra money that has been put in over the past few years has been extremely welcome.
	It is a great pity that, on Report, some Opposition Members used throw-away lines about "politically correct" social workers, as if that were the norm. I hope that I and my fellow ex-social worker colleagues on the Labour Benches have demonstrated that we, too, can be conservative—albeit with a small C—and pragmatic, but that above all we have the interests of children at heart. In bringing adoption into line with the Children Act 1989 and making the needs of the child paramount, the Bill is extremely welcome.
	Like everything else, social work practice moves on, and our understanding of adoption will increase. I hope that the Bill will provide a positive basis for the development of adoption practice which will benefit all those involved in the adoption triangle. More importantly, I hope that the publicity that has surrounded this Bill— I share the concerns of the hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton) about the fact that only certain aspects have been publicised—will encourage more people to come forward as adopters.
	It is right to say that there are very few babies available, but many older children need homes. I for one will never forget the teenager who argued on television last year that she should be given the chance to become part of a family. After all, real families are for life, not just for the duration of childhood. I sincerely hope that all children who need to be adopted will have that opportunity. I believe that this Bill should help that process.

Sandra Gidley: This has been a long haul. There is much good about this Bill, but we seem to have been a long time getting to this stage. For some of us, the process started way before last year's election, when evidence gathering on the previous adoption Bill was destined to continue for many more sittings than just three, had the election not intervened. The Bill presented at the beginning of this Session was much improved on the one on which we had worked. I am pleased to say that the Bill now going to the House of Lords is an even greater improvement.
	The spirit of co-operation and obvious dedication and commitment of most Members who served on the Committee has been heartening. By commitment, I do not mean commitment to a political party or a political ideology, but commitment to the Bill and to trying to get it right for the children who need such services.
	I particularly appreciate the fact that the Bill has benefited from the Special Standing Committee process. What struck me powerfully during the evidence-gathering sittings was the huge consensus among a wide variety of agencies. It has been refreshing in some ways not to have had to balance the arguments of a wide range of vested interests. For the most part, people have spoken with one voice. That is simply because they are thinking of the child first. Hopefully, that feeling is shared among Members of all parties.
	The Bill was also a welcome departure from what I understood to be the accepted practice of not selecting Members to scrutinise a Bill if they knew anything about the subject. As I said in Committee, Gyles Brandreth described in his diaries how he said to the Whips that he wanted to serve on a Bill concerning entertainment because he knew a lot about the subject, so they put him on a transport Bill. I have therefore been delighted that, to help us on our way, there have been several social workers—politically correct or otherwise—who have been able on occasions to say, "Get real; life's not like that," and to tell things how they are. They often couched that sentiment in different terms. I sincerely hope that we have got this Bill right, because if we have not, we will probably have to wait another 25 years for an opportunity to do so.
	One problem, which has been highlighted, is that in some ways we have before us only the bones of the legislation. The flesh is yet to come, in regulations. That has presented some difficulties, as we have had to take a lot on trust, which is not always easy for an Opposition party. The fact that the regulations have not been available for scrutiny is a matter of regret. I therefore hope that, as the hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton) has said, we shall have time to study the regulations and comment on them, and will not end up with rushed legislation.
	I also want to comment on the timetabling. I am generally in favour of timetabling, but the Government must admit that they got it wrong with this Bill. Much of interest was not discussed fully in Committee owing to lack of time. In addition, we did not get the chance to get round to many issues of great interest that were timetabled for Report on Thursday. That was partly because proceedings on Report were dominated by one issue. That is regrettable, because it diluted the Bill's wider message. Hopefully, we will learn lessons and not chop and change things at the last minute just because they look as though they will fit in more conveniently as a result. I am pleased that on the whole the Government have listened and adapted to our concerns. There has been a lot of consultation and information from various Ministers, for which I thank them. It has been helpful to know that concerns have been taken on board and are being addressed.
	It remains for me to wish the Government well with this Bill, for which there is support on both sides of the House. We hope that we will be consulted further, but the most important thing is that support is provided. Some of us have been banging on about this subject for some time. The fact remains that three years' funding was announced and allocated to adoption services in December 2000, but by the time that the Bill reaches the statute book, that funding will have disappeared. It would be good to have some commitment here and now that that funding will continue. Again, we must take such issues on trust.
	None the less, at this stage, I hope that I am not being foolish and that I am proved right in trusting that the Government will provide the money. Money has gone into social services but has been aimed very much at services for older people, at the expense of children's services. That should not be allowed to continue. I wish the Bill well.

Dari Taylor: I feel very privileged to have the opportunity to contribute to this debate. My first comments are most definitely that the Bill has been brilliantly piloted through the House by the Minister, and that it is long, long overdue.
	The Bill has many qualities, foremost among which is that it places the child's needs at the centre of all processes. Importantly, in so doing, it places centre stage the needs of often very vulnerable children. This is indeed a very important Bill. For me, the interpretation of such needs ultimately means the achievement—hopefully after a short time—of placing all children in loving, stable homes. That is the aim of the Bill. I say that knowing that there are thousands of children longing and hoping to hear that they will be placed with an adoptive family and become a member of it. The fact that there are thousands of such children explains the urgency behind the Bill.
	Alongside the needs of the child, an important characteristic of the Bill is its provision on care plans, which are to be followed and adopted by local authorities or voluntary agencies. Such plans will not only encapsulate a time frame but allow young people to comment on and direct the way in which the plan should be established. When that plan is not put in place within the time frame, a robust review by an independent body is available. For me, that is crucial.
	I worked in care as a young woman, and I was overwhelmed by the number of children who seemed lost to the care system until they were 16, when, frankly, they were turned out with little support—if any. I hope and believe that the independent scrutiny will be robust and tough and that it will ensure that the best for the child is always achieved. Throughout our consideration, we have said again and again that the needs of the child are at the forefront. Those needs have been carefully determined and outlined, and we must achieve them.
	One of the most important areas of the Bill—the debate about who wants to adopt and those who it is felt should have that privilege—hit the headlines in a way that most of us felt it should not have. It is a privilege to bring up a child and a privilege to be given the opportunity to bring up another person's child. Inevitably, there was a lot of tension around that issue, and perhaps it was always going to be the most difficult question for many people involved in considering the Bill.
	For me, the introduction of new clause 13 helped to resolve that issue. It ably, knowledgeably and compassionately defined how we, as a group of people in this Chamber, should think about others who are, or who want to be, in the process of adopting a child. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Wakefield (Mr. Hinchliffe), who introduced the new clause in a way that defined the real situation in which we all live in today's society. It extends legal rights to couples who seriously want to be involved in the adoption process—not one person, but all persons who want to bring up a child.
	My hon. Friend acknowledged in the House a point that I have made time and again, as a Christian and a happily married female who has had the privilege of adopting: marriage and heterosexuality can offer the most loving and permanent home. I believe that mine has done so, but I make no prejudiced statement. I also believe that if social services and other bodies conclude, following a thorough investigation, that equally long-term non-marriage relationships between heterosexuals or homosexuals can also offer a permanent and loving home, those people should not be excluded from the right to enjoy the privilege of bringing up an adopted child.

Andrew Stunell: I am following the hon. Lady's argument and, as a parent of adopted children, I concur with her views. Does she agree that what has to be evaluated is not one kind of partnership against another, but all those partnerships against living in a children's home? The choice is easy to make.

Dari Taylor: I could not agree with the hon. Gentleman more. I have seen children waiting at the door on a Saturday when visitors are coming, hoping and praying that mum, an auntie or someone will visit, and I could not prise them from that door. That is what makes me say that the hon. Gentleman is so right. Children want someone who thinks that they are special—No. 1 in their lives.
	I am conscious that time is against me and that lots of Members want to speak, but let me say that there is much in the Bill that I want to praise—independent scrutiny, counselling support, a 40 per cent. increase in adoptions and inter-country adoptions involving the best for the child. All those are important qualities.
	With two colleagues in the House, I have had the joy of being co-chair of the all-party adoption group. It has been a privilege to work with the many voluntary organisations that are part of the group. They have given us excellent advice and their considerable experience has been invaluable. It is worth recording all that Liv O'Hanlon and many others have given, including a perspective that is so important. They, like us, want one thing: an effective Bill that ensures a stable, loving family home for the thousands of children who long to be part of a family.
	Owing to my personal experience, my enthusiasm and my emotional sense, my commitment to the Bill is absolute. I have had the privilege of adopting a beautiful daughter. As I have told the House once before, social services turned us down—we were too old and not good enough. That nearly destroyed my life, so I am very pleased that we have provided for independent scrutiny. Without my daughter, my husband and I would not have had the family that we desperately wanted.
	I support the Bill completely and I am delighted with its content. I congratulate Members on both sides of the House on their involvement, especially my hon. Friend the Minister, who has ably piloted the Bill to Third Reading.

Elfyn Llwyd: I recall saying on Second Reading that the Bill had the potential to be a landmark Bill, and I still believe that. I value the excellent Special Standing Committee procedure, which I found very interesting. We spoke with knowledgeable people, so we did not have to rely on the green ink brigade and a huge number of letters—some, although not all, of which were perhaps uninformed.
	Clause 1 says that the interests of children are paramount throughout their lives, and that is absolutely right. Members have said that the timetable provisions bring the Bill into line with the Children Act 1989; I remember being in practice when it was introduced. The Children Act revolutionised child law and I hope that the Bill does the same through the ambitious target of increasing adoptions by 40 per cent.
	We have, of course, widened the pool of potential adopters, and much has been said about that over the past few days, but it is important that there is no ban on potential adopters. If people are fit to adopt, so be it. The only ban should be on those who are unfit to adopt. I echo the hon. Member for Stockton, South (Ms Taylor): it is indeed a privilege to bring up children and whether they are our own, adopted or someone else's does not matter. Adoption is a great privilege, and with that privilege come serious obligations.
	I am extremely pleased with the way in which the Bill has been amended. When Ministers say in Standing Committee, "We'll get back to you," or, "We'll write to you," one sometimes has to take it with a pinch of salt. Refreshingly, the Minister and her colleague sent those letters, and I pay tribute to her for that. Changes have been made and further serious consideration has been given to the arguments put. More than that, one cannot really expect.
	I welcome the provision of special guardianship orders as a helpful tool in the armoury. Care plans and the independent review are also most welcome.
	I add my voice to that of hon. Members who congratulated the hon. Member for Luton, South (Margaret Moran) on her crusade concerning contact by people who have been involved in domestic violence. She has worked very hard and the fruits of her labours were obvious in the amendments that came forth last week.
	On inter-country adoption problems remain, but the Bill is a good, positive step forward. The appeal procedure for those who have been turned down for whatever reason is right and proper.
	I must, however, sound a note of caution as regards CAFCASS. We know that CAFCASS will play an all-important—indeed pivotal—role. I would go as far as to say that it must succeed if the Bill is to succeed. Over the past few months, I have spoken to many practitioners, including senior judges, who are worried that the additional work load on CAFCASS will create problems if it is not followed by additional resources. We all know what the old children's guardians ad litem are there for. I know, as a practitioner, that the quality, independence and experience of guardians is extremely important. I have no reason to say that such people will not be as good in future as they have always been, but I urge the Government to ensure that the resources are there to enable sufficient numbers of them to do the job so that they do not have to rush to produce reports without doing the work properly—otherwise we will fail those whom we seek to serve.
	I shall now draw my remarks to a conclusion.

Kevin Brennan: Before the hon. Gentleman does so, I pay tribute to him, as a fellow Welsh Member, for his contribution to the Bill—something that we do not often do across the Floor of the House. Will the hon. Gentleman now defend the honour of our nation by announcing who has won the prize that he promised in Committee for the best pronunciation of the name of his constituency? Can he confirm that he has a reputation for being knowledgeable not only about adoption, but about wine, and that whoever has won can expect a significantly expensive and very good vintage bottle of wine?

Elfyn Llwyd: I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman's antennae have been working overtime, but he was in the frame for the bottle of wine, and he has been sufficiently gushing this evening to qualify for it. I shall ensure that he has it before the end of the week—inevitably without the cork, but we shall not go into that now.
	Mr. Justice Wall, a very experienced family judge in the High Court, recently said:
	"I find it disappointing that one constantly hears rhetoric that children are at the top of various agendas but when it comes to the nitty-gritty of a judge saying to Cafcass 'I want this child represented and/or an urgent report', one"—
	is told that it has not got the resources. That is a warning sign that we should consider. CAFCASS is vital in the process. I am sure that it will be possible to provide the necessary wherewithal for it to do its work, and I am sorry to end on a sour note, but I urge the Government to ensure that it has all the resources ready at its disposal. CAFCASS had a rather inglorious birth, but I am sure that the genuine people who work for it will unite with one voice to say, "Give us what we need to do the work."
	With those few caveats, I am very pleased with the way in which the Bill has been amended. It will prove to be a landmark Bill, and I am pleased to have played a small part in the deliberations.

Hilton Dawson: It is a pleasure to take part in this stage of our consideration of a very good Bill. I join all hon. Members in speaking warmly of the good and positive relationships across the Floor of the House. I welcome the positive contributions that Members have made, from whatever background they come, and the care with which they have addressed the crucial issues.
	I, too, pay tribute to the voluntary and statutory organisations that helped us during the Special Standing Committee stage and continue to do so. I strongly support the Bill and the Government's aim of increasing the number of adoptions from care by 40 per cent. It is a good, if relatively modest, aim, with which the Bill will greatly assist.
	I want to consider the way in which hon. Members have dealt with the measure. I am disturbed that people's enthusiasm for adoption can lead them to denigrate residential and foster care—that has happened in the past hour or so—yet residential and foster care are important elements of the care system that can lead to good outcomes for children. I am worried that some of the first-class people who work in residential and foster care and in social work will read some of the contributions that seemed to place adoption on a pedestal. It is a good option for children, but it is no panacea and it is not the only choice; extended care in the child's family is another important option.
	As the Bill progresses, further discussions will be held behind the scenes. I hope and trust that they will refer to the contribution that family group conferencing can make to decisions about where children and young people live. Families often have tremendous resources, which they can bring to bear on problems if they have the opportunity to do so.
	I want to comment on children and young people in care. Again, it is important that, in our enthusiasm to stress our anxiety about those who have been grossly neglected or abused, we do not overlook young people's potential, quality, resilience, courage, strength and intelligence. Every third Wednesday, the all-party group on children and young people in care meets; children and young people from care or those who have left care usually outnumber parliamentarians. I recommend attending a meeting to hon. Members who have shown an interest in the care system during the Bill's passage. Those young people know more about the care system than we will ever know, whatever our social work backgrounds. They have great qualities. After listening and talking to them, hon. Members are more confident and optimistic about children and young people in care.
	We usually emphasise the negative side of care. That changes on meeting some of the young people who have been to university and are studying for PhDs, and the young person who, after being corporately parented by his local authority, became a member of that local authority at 21, two weeks ago. That is something to conjure with.
	This is a good Bill. It addresses the fundamental aim of increasing options for care by improving the support available to those involved in adoption; by ensuring the availability of information about children who need to be adopted; and by clearing away work which is important in itself but which gets in the way of a lot of the adoption work of family placement teams. Step-parents being able to acquire parental responsibility for their step-children much more easily will be a boon to many teams, which will be freed to do their work by the establishment of the new status of special guardianship.
	Above all, it has been a good Bill because of the way in which Ministers—the Minister of State, Department of Health, my hon. Friend the Member for Redditch (Jacqui Smith), and the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department, my hon. Friend the Member for Doncaster, Central (Ms Winterton)—and their team of civil servants have responded so positively to the issues of concern. We have seen that today, too, in the way in which they have responded over issues relating to section 17, to advocacy for children and young people and to the role and status of parents in legal proceedings.
	There is still a way to go. I regret that a process that has been largely positive has not given us enough time to debate important issues about parental responsibility, consent, placement orders and contact. The Bill brings adoption together with the Children Act. I regard the Children Act as great, balanced, profound legislation that goes to the heart of important issues affecting children. More work needs to be done on bringing the Bill in line with that Act. I am concerned that, in getting rid of issues such as freeing children for adoption, we may have created a category of children subject to placement orders who are not looked after, who are not accommodated or who are not on care orders. There is more work to be done on that.
	I am disappointed that in the course of this Bill we did not deal with the vexed question of private fostering, which remains for another day. I am confident that the Government will get to grips with it. The biggest issue of all in making sure that the Bill works follows on from what the hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy (Mr. Llwyd) said—the number, status, pay and standing of the social work profession within CAFCASS, local authorities and voluntary organisations. We must get that right.
	We have a very long way to go, but this is a good Bill. It sets us on a good track and I wish it well.

Jonathan R Shaw: It is a pleasure to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Lancaster and Wyre (Mr. Dawson). In fact, it is tremendous to follow my hon. Friend, who made a fundamentally tremendous speech about children in care, about whom he speaks so passionately. Perhaps he should get a prize, another bottle of wine from the hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy (Mr. Llwyd), for the number times he mentions "tremendous" and "fundamental".
	The Minister of State, Department of Health, my hon. Friend the Member for Redditch (Jacqui Smith), stands tall because she has delivered this Bill. We have had White Papers and various attempts by Governments of both parties to deliver an improvement on the Adoption Act 1976. She can be proud.
	My hon. Friend mentioned the fact that she was surrounded by social workers during the Bill's consideration—a fact that may not always have curried favour. Perhaps she should be an honorary social worker. The brown corduroys are in the post, but we do not expect her to grow a beard or to drive a 2CV.
	The hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton) invited me to intervene on his closing statement, but I did not do so because it was a fine speech that encapsulated his response throughout our deliberations—apart from last Thursday, when he let himself down. In talking about political correctness, he demonstrated the right-wing version of it to which I referred in Committee. That apart, he has made a good contribution, and has introduced proposals that my hon. Friend the Minister accepted. Such consensus has been the Bill's hallmark, and it has made for a better measure. I also pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Doncaster, Central (Ms Winterton).
	Such was the atmosphere created by the presence of so many former social workers in Committee that the hon. Member for Canterbury (Mr. Brazier) felt the need to share some of his pain with us. According to Hansard, which I was able to consult during our proceedings, he said that he had suffered as a statistician, and I responded that we had all done so.

Julian Brazier: That was very cruel.

Jonathan R Shaw: Indeed. I was in the Corridor with the hon. Gentleman—we are both Members for Kent constituencies—discussing certain parts of the Bill. I was quite annoyed, but I got even angrier when he kindly told me to calm down. He has also made a contribution, and no one can deny the genuineness of his belief in adoption as a means to provide a better future for children. He has consistently spoken on that issue, and although we hold differing views on several matters, I take my hat off to him: he has shown commitment throughout. [Hon. Members: "Hear, hear".] The same can also be said of other hon. Members.
	This has not been a unique experience, however. After my former job as a social worker, I, like other hon. Members, arrived in this place hoping to bring about change. I have been privileged to play a part not only in the Adoption and Children Bill, but in the Care Standards Bill and the Children (Leaving Care) Bill. All three Bills sought to bring about change for some of the most vulnerable children in our communities by making their lives better. Given my background, to have been involved at the coal face of such legislation has been an immense privilege.
	The Bill will provide greater opportunity for children and young people to be adopted. My hon. Friend the Minister deserves praise, but we should also acknowledge the many agencies outside the House that have helped us all. I pay particular tribute to Felicity Collier and Deborah Cullen, of British Agencies for Adoption and Fostering, who campaigned and lobbied hard for the Bill before it came before the House. The Bill is testament to their hard work, but most of all to the children who want adoptive placements. That is what our proceedings on Second Reading and in Committee have been about, and the consensus that we have found bodes well for the future of adoption.

Liz Blackman: I regarded myself as a junior member of the Special Standing Committee—I have no background in social work, social services or adoption—but I learned a great deal from my colleagues who are former social workers. I should point out that most of them are not politically correct, but they are very knowledgable. I also learned a great deal from my hon. Friend the Member for Redditch (Jacqui Smith), and from the hon. Member for Canterbury (Mr. Brazier), thanks to the evidence that he brought before the Committee.
	The whole process was fine and outstanding. I know that we had two bites of the cherry initially, with two Second Readings and two lots of evidence, but that was valuable because it helped to refine what is now a fine piece of legislation. We were given first-rate evidence by all the groups and individuals who appeared before us. I have sat on other Committees that have taken evidence, but the quality was not as outstanding, crisp and meaningful. That was a great privilege.
	As I have said before, I did not have a background in adoption practice, but a couple came to see me because they could not obtain information on a child whom they were considering adopting. They were blocked at every step of the way by the local authority. In the end, out of sheer frustration and upset, they backed off. I have pressed to put rigorous provision in the Bill that will make local authorities provide detailed information to prospective adoptive parents. The children can be difficult, and parents need to know as much about them as possible to know whether they can give them a stable, loving home. Throughout the process, my point was listened to and the Minister has said that it will be addressed in regulations. Indeed, all the hon. Members involved have beavered away and chivvied the Minister, and she has been so receptive that we have made progress. I praise her for that.
	One of the groups that gave evidence to the Special Standing Committee was the Nottingham Catholic Children's Society. I live in Nottingham, so I took up the society's invitation to visit. Staff took me through the practical measures that they take in the lead up to an adoption and described the post-adoption support they provide. They are responsible for some very fine practice. As several other hon. Members have said, we must ensure that the legislation is put into practice on the ground. We must implement it with the best possible practice, network it and ensure that it happens. The finest piece of paper in the world does not mean much to children who want to be adopted if the procedures are not working.
	The Bill is excellent and it was a privilege to serve on the Committee. We must get this right for all those children who are in care and who want to be adopted.

Henry Bellingham: It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Erewash (Liz Blackman). Like her, I learned much from the progress of the Bill. I declare an interest, because I am the father of an adopted child. I declared that in Committee, and I declare it now, because that is the right thing to do. Having been through the experience of adopting, I know quite a lot about it, but I have learned much more from Labour Members and their experience of social work. It was a fulfilling Committee on which to serve.
	The Bill is long overdue and I hope that it will be implemented as soon as possible. The Minister touched on that subject earlier on Report, but I hope that final implementation will be brought forward even further.
	As the Minister pointed out, the Bill's overriding priority must be the interests of children. My hon. Friend the Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton) mentioned permanency, security and stability, which are critical. It is crucial that the interests of the child are put first. A moving article in today's Evening Standard tells the story of a man called Paul James, who pursued a council for its failure to have him adopted. The council had to give him his notes, which stretched back over many years. Paul James is quoted as saying:
	"I wanted to know why I was a loner, why everyone else seemed to have a loving family and I didn't."
	Anyone who gets the chance should read that article, because it sums up what the Bill is about. It is about the lives of people such as Paul James. It is also very much in the country's interests, because children brought up in a secure and stable family are much more likely to fulfil their own potential and then go on to contribute more to the country.
	I thought that Thursday's debate was all too short. As an adopter myself, I feel that adopters make a lifelong commitment to the children they adopt. Indeed, they probably make even more of a commitment to someone else's child than they would to their own. That is why I felt it was equally important for the person concerned to make a lifelong commitment to the partner with whom they are adopting a child. Obviously the debate will go on and on—it will continue in another place—but of course I accept the result of Thursday's votes, and indeed the results of any votes tonight.
	I understand the concern felt by many Members about inter-country adoption. In Committee, I tabled an amendment to allow private social workers to compile projects such as private home studies under licence to local authorities. There are many private social workers out there, most of whom are former public sector social workers. We must try to harness that resource. Unfortunately my amendment was not accepted, despite being supported by Plaid Cymru and the Liberal Democrats, but I hope that it will be resurrected in another place and given serious consideration.
	Local authorities are already stretched, and, as my hon. Friend the Member for East Worthing and Shoreham pointed out, many are retrenching towards statutory responsibilities. The one thing they do not want to take on now is inter-country adoption. I have spoken to a number of social workers, who made their point very clearly. Many of them cannot join voluntary agencies, but a sensible solution might be to contract them to local authorities and introduce a licensing system.
	I hope that the other place will also return to another amendment tabled in Committee, which would enable adopted children to inherit titles. There was a certain amount of sneering from Labour Members in Committee, but the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department did not sneer, because it was important. Adopted children are allowed to inherit everything else. They are on a par with other children, with the exception of inheriting titles. It would surely be appropriate for the amendment to be considered again in another place. As I said in Committee, 15 peers and 15 baronets have adopted children. It seems absurd that those children can inherit a home or, for instance, a picture, but cannot inherit a title—especially at a time when the Government are so keen to remove all hereditary peers from the other place.
	It is a pity that the Bill has been subject to so much timetabling. As the last three days have shown, there is great interest in it, and we have engaged in a series of constructive, worthwhile debates during that time; but in Committee the axe descended on swathes of it, and those debates fell by the wayside. That does not reflect well on the House. While I agree with all who have described the Committee stage as excellent and fulfilling for all who participated, the curtailment of so much debate was extremely frustrating. I am sure that, in their heart of hearts, Labour Members agree. When a Bill is not particularly controversial and has attracted all-party agreement, why timetable it? In fact, we might even have made quicker progress in Committee if the Bill had not been timetabled. We would have had less of an artificial framework in which to pursue the debate, which would have meant quicker progress in some areas. We could have focused the debate on areas that we have not been allowed to debate at all.
	I join my hon. Friend the Member for East Worthing and Shoreham in the tribute that he paid to Tom Goldsmith, who was quite superb. The Opposition team went to him with a number of amendments. Some of mine were certainly not as expertly drafted as they might have been. I went to see Tom Goldsmith, who provided a great deal of patient help, assistance and understanding.
	I also pay tribute to the Minister's civil servants. I appreciated the letters that both Ministers sent us—I raised a number of quite technical, legal points in Committee, but both Ministers always replied; they were extremely conscientious. I also thank the Minister of State, Department of Health for the lengthy letter that she sent on 10 May—it was about 10 pages long. That sums up the attitude of the civil servants who worked on the Bill. They worked tirelessly, they were extremely professional and they served all members of the Committee equally. Finally, I wish the Bill well as it goes to another place.

Kevin Brennan: I should like to add my praise to everyone associated with the Bill. I should feel a fraud if I accepted the bottle of wine offered by the hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy (Mr. Llwyd). As a fellow countryman, I disqualified myself from the competition. If it does come my way, I will pass it on to one of my colleagues from the other side of Offa's dyke. I feel that my hon. Friend the Member for Stockton, South (Ms Taylor) would be wrong to accept it, as she was born in Ynyshir in the Rhondda and is a fluent Welsh speaker.
	This is the first Bill with which I have been associated and taken through its stages. I was honoured to be associated with the Special Standing Committee procedure, which was very welcome. Now that I am serving on the Committee stages of two other Bills, I know that, as I suspected, it is not common practice for us to legislate on the basis of evidence. It is a process that we should use more often.
	I have sometimes felt like an impostor. Like my hon. Friend the Member for Erewash (Liz Blackman), I am not a social worker, and it has occasionally been lonely admitting to that on the Labour Benches. However, I have been tremendously impressed by contributions from all right hon. and hon. Members, particularly from those who have an enormous amount of experience, commitment and passion. As a relatively new Member, I suspect that however long I remain in the House, I will not very often see the kind of expertise or quality of evidence and debate that have been apparent during the proceedings on this Bill.
	There have been one or two lighter moments in our proceedings. One or two hon. Friends have suggested that the hon. Member for North-West Norfolk (Mr. Bellingham) looks a bit like Mr. Burns from "The Simpsons". That is an unfair comparison, because I know that, unlike Mr. Burns, the hon. Gentleman is a very nice man. One of our more interesting debates came about when he moved his amendment to allow adopted children to inherit titles. It was extremely brave of him to come out as a republican on that occasion and threaten the line and the hereditary principle of the monarchy. I compliment him on his bravery.

Jonathan R Shaw: Particularly in this jubilee year.

Kevin Brennan: Indeed.
	I very much enjoyed all the contributions of the hon. Member for North-West Norfolk, particularly his most recent one. He showed tremendous courage in talking about the hereditary principle, peers and the guillotine in the same speech. I compliment him on being a true radical.
	I also thank the Minister of State, Department of Health, my hon. Friend the Member for Redditch (Jacqui Smith), for piloting the Bill so well, with the able assistance of the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department, my hon. Friend the Member for Doncaster, Central (Ms Winterton). My hon. Friend the Minister for State has shown great sticking power, as well as tolerance of Labour and Opposition Members. The Bill has been improved due to her receptive attitude to suggestions.
	I am disappointed that the question of access to information for birth relatives remains unresolved. If a free vote had been allowed on that matter—as it was on another matter last week—perhaps the result would have been different. That is not meant as a criticism—hon. Members are entitled to their views. I am sorry that the hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton) pressed the matter to a Division. He was perfectly entitled to do so, but I had hoped that we should not need to establish a view in this place before the Bill went to another place. However, that has been done and I am sure that the matter will be further discussed in another place. Indeed, I hope that we can find ways to discuss it further.
	I welcome the Minister's announcement last week of a national focal point for intermediary services. I hope that organisations such as the National Organisation for Counselling Adoptees and Parents will be considered for that role, and that the funding that my hon. Friend pledged last week will be sufficient to make the role meaningful so that there will be genuine help to solve the problem.
	I read the Committee reports for the legislation introduced in the 1970s, especially the sections on access to information. Access was granted retrospectively so that people could find out about their origins. Some of the attitudes towards access to information at that time are still reflected 25 years later, so I hope that further progress can be made on that point elsewhere. None the less, the Bill is excellent and I wish it well during the remainder of its passage through Parliament.

Andrew Turner: I feel like an intruder among Members who have seen the Bill through all its stages in this place, so my contribution will be modest—as were my contributions at earlier points in the progress of the measure. As hon. Members have already observed, it is unusual for us to legislate on the basis of expertise and evidence, and I note that both are available on the Labour and the Opposition Benches.
	Third Reading is the time to congratulate those who have successfully taken the Bill through the House, and I congratulate Members who served on the Committee on taking evidence as they did and on bringing the Bill to Report in such good shape. It has, of course, been improved on Report.
	I am especially grateful that care plans will be put on a statutory basis and that there will be an opportunity to review their implementation. I am glad that there will be seamless local authority support for adoption. I represent an authority where no one, as a matter of policy, is adopted within the authority of their origin, so I know it is especially important that the Government produce—as I am sure that they will—regulations to make that transition seamless. I thank them for that.
	The interests of the child are paramount and I perfectly understand why the interests of children going through the adoption process are so important to Members on both sides of the House. However, I hope that in another place the interests of those who are equally affected by the adoption process will be given a little more thought.
	This is a good Bill and I and my hon. Friends welcome it. I congratulate the Minister of State on bringing it to Report.

Julian Brazier: I am delighted to have served on the Bill, which the Opposition have welcomed throughout. There is no time to reiterate at length the Bill's merits, on which we have dwelled during most of the last two and bit days on Report, but I should like to congratulate Ministers, especially the Minister of State, Department of Health, the hon. Member for Redditch (Jacqui Smith), on announcing so many concessions today, many of which, as she generously said, had their origins on this side of the House. She has engaged in lively discussion in Committee and throughout the consideration of the Bill.
	I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton) on carrying the burden single-handedly, often at the same time as serving on a Committee that was considering another Bill. He has brought considerable energy and intelligence to a very difficult and complicated subject.
	I congratulate three Conservative Back-Bench Members: my hon. Friend the Member for North-West Norfolk (Mr. Bellingham), who has just made such an interesting speech, bringing out, once again, the very strong commitment that he has to the issue because of his personal position; my hon. Friend the Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Djanogly), who was with us earlier this evening and is the former chairman of a social services committee; and my hon. Friend the Member for North Dorset (Mr. Walter), who has also been so energetic.
	The hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy (Mr. Llwyd)—I never thought I had a chance of winning that bottle of wine—brought real expertise to the Committee. I hope that, even at this late stage, the Minister will take on board the very strong plea that he has made, based on his experience as a family lawyer, about CAFCASS, without which much of the Bill cannot succeed.
	I congratulate a number of Labour Members on making lively contributions throughout the consideration of the Bill. In most cases, their contributions have been based on tremendous personal experience of social services. In particular, I should mention the hon. Member for Lancaster and Wyre (Mr. Dawson), with whom I have been debating this subject, on and off, for almost five years now.
	Although he mentioned some anecdotes, the hon. Member for Chatham and Aylesford (Jonathan Shaw) did not comment, in pulling my leg on a variety of subjects, on my visit to the barber, when I had to suggest that he was perhaps short of materials for the makeover that I was seeking. Perhaps he was thinking of glass houses and all that. He has also made a great contribution. He has mentioned my being a statistician, for my sins. A couple of days ago a single table crossed my path that brought home to me, just like that, what the Bill is all about. It was a horrifying table showing the number of moves among the 25,000 children who left care in 2000. Just over a fifth of them had been moved five or more times in the previous 12 months. Some 16,000 of them had been moved more than 10 times in that time. What sorts of lives do those children have? That is why adoption is so vital.
	A girl from care visited me for a day's work experience, organised through one of the campaigning groups with which the hon. Member for Lancaster and Wyre is involved. Very sadly, at the end of the day, she said, "Yes, I would have loved to have a family of my own, but my mum objected to it." I asked when she had last seen her mother, and the answer was when she was aged five. That is what this is all about.
	The national register has been put on a statutory basis, and independent review is important. The targets for delay, which had already been announced, will now be backed up by changes in court procedure, but please think, "CAFCASS, CAFCASS, CAFCASS"—we have got to get it right. There is some extra money, but we shall see whether it is enough. Adoption support services have been changed. All those are achievements.
	I should like to spend the last two or three minutes of my speech focusing, without sounding sour, on two points that have not been considered so far, both of which are very important, and I hope that they will be considered in another place. The first relates to contact.
	Several hon. Members made the point that we are introducing new safeguards on contact. However, the group led by amendment No. 182 could cause problems. That amendment states:
	"the court may make an order under this section requiring the person with whom the child lives, or is to live, to allow the child to visit or stay with the person named in the order, or for the person named in the order and the child otherwise to have contact with each other."
	There is a serious danger that the amendments on birth families, which were tabled at the last moment and not debated, will restore the contact that in many cases it is so important to cease. There is not time for me to dwell on the many harrowing examples of that, although I mentioned a case in my constituency in which fresh contact with birth parents destroyed the adoptive relationship. I hope that those amendments are considered in another place.
	My second concern relates to placement orders. Many of us welcome the move from freeing orders to placement orders. Although time prevents me from going into the matter in depth, some of the better informed pressure groups—I refer in particular to Sue James of the Adoption Forum and her briefing—are worried that placement orders are in danger of becoming freeing orders by another name. I see the hon. Member for Lancaster and Wyre nodding. The problem is that the orders do not necessarily involve placements. Although the amendments legislate for placements, the orders are not tied to them. That is why we hope that the amendments that were not reached here will be tabled in another place so that we can at least bring the matter back to court if the situation is drifting.
	I do not want to end on those two sour notes, however. I know that another place will have a chance to consider the amendments that we did not debate. I end, therefore, where I started. The Bill is excellent. I am proud to have served on the Committee and I very much enjoyed working with the Committee on it. We commend the Bill to the House.

Jacqui Smith: This debate has been conducted with the same good temper and in the same constructive way that all the Bill's stages have been considered.
	In my introduction, I spelled out the important ways in which the Bill has changed. The hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton) referred to those changes. I must emphasise the attempt that we have made to listen to the experts who have been involved in the process, many of whom were mentioned by hon. Members. We have also tabled amendments to ensure that we not only have a consultative process, but act on it.
	However, making changes as we go along brings considerable pressure to bear on the officials responsible for supporting Ministers. I certainly want to add my voice to the comments made by several hon. Members who thanked my officials for their work. They have put in long hours and sterling work, for which they deserve our congratulations, whether they are in the Lord Chancellor's Department or the Department of Health. I also want to commend the way in which the hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham led the Opposition, ably assisted by the hon. Member for Canterbury (Mr. Brazier).
	My hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Heeley (Ms Munn) once again used her experience of social work to inform her contribution. I share her view that we should not be quick to criticise social workers because they improve children's lives every day across the country. We should recognise that crucial work.
	The hon. Member for Romsey (Sandra Gidley) rightly emphasised the need for support and resources. I assure her that the Government will continue to invest in social services to an even greater extent than we have done since 1997.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Stockton, South (Ms Taylor) brought her considerable experience to the debate, both personal and as a result of her work with the all-party group on adoption. It is worth while putting on the record our support for the work done by all the stakeholder groups involved and by the excellent all-party group, before which I appeared at least twice, and it was a stimulating experience.
	The hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy (Mr. Llwyd) referred once again to his legal expertise, which has been useful during consideration of the Bill. He emphasised the need to do all that we can to widen the pool of adopters and the important role of CAFCASS. Had it not been for the intervention of my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, West (Kevin Brennan), there would have been a bitter turn to this evening's events, with allegations being made of a Welsh stitch-up when it came to the bottle of wine. I am still not completely sure that everything is above board, but at least my hon. Friend has agreed to give away his bottle of wine.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Lancaster and Wyre (Mr. Dawson) emphasised the key target to increase by 40 per cent. the adoption of children from care. As he has done throughout the process, he stressed the need to listen to the voice of young people in care as the real experts about the system. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Chatham and Aylesford (Jonathan Shaw) for his kind words. Now that the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department, my hon. Friend the Member for Doncaster, Central (Ms Winterton), is back in her place, I reiterate my thanks for her ministerial role, her support and her hard work as we have taken this Bill through the House.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Erewash (Liz Blackman) should not talk down her role. We have had many experts on this Bill, but there have also been many people who did not start as experts but rapidly became experts, and she falls into that category. She rightly re-emphasised the importance of provision of information to prospective adopters when such improvements have been possible to the legislation.
	The hon. Member for North-West Norfolk (Mr. Bellingham) once again emphasised the need to ensure effective implementation, and reminded us, as did other hon. Members, about the significant position in the Bill of the paramountcy of the child, which is at its heart. As I suggested earlier, that has received support on both sides of the House.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, West should probably have won a prize for the best jokes—never mind his pronunciation of Meirionnydd Nant Conwy—during the passage of the Bill. He was also able to be extremely serious, as he showed this evening, when once again he campaigned and pressed hard on the issue of access to information.
	The hon. Member for Isle of Wight (Mr. Turner) should not be sorry about coming late to the Bill, as, although I have not necessarily agreed with him, he made an interesting contribution today and last Thursday.
	The hon. Member for Canterbury spelled out why children need the stability provided by adoption. He raised some concerns about contact, which will undoubtedly be discussed further in another place. I want him to recognise, however, that the special nature of contact in adoption is the reason why we have put forward these provisions.
	Last August, when I launched the Government's national adoption standards, I was privileged to meet several adopters and their adopted children. During the event, I was able to watch the children and their adoptive parents. They laughed together, they argued and there were tears, but there were also hugs. That is what being in a family is about. Adoption can offer that opportunity to more children. The Bill will ensure that it does so, and I commend it to the House.
	Question put and agreed to.
	Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed.

Evan Harris: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. We are about to decide on the draft Health Service (Control of Patient Information) Regulations 2002, but what advice can you give to those Members who, although they support the substance of the regulations, are very concerned about the lack of scrutiny that the House has been able to give to the Government's proposals? The one and a half hour debate in Standing Committee descended into what might be described as organised chaos with a welter of points of order. Neither the Conservative party's Front-Bench spokesman nor myself, as the Liberal Democrats' Front-Bench spokesman, were able to speak and to ask questions of the Government, because there was so little time and because of the confusion surrounding the regulations. We are now being asked to approve these important regulations even though they have not received adequate scrutiny. Do you have any advice for hon. Members?

Madam Deputy Speaker: I understand that the Committee considered the regulations and reported in accordance with Standing Orders. I do not therefore think that there is anything that I can do to assist the hon. Gentleman. Standing Order No. 118(6) requires me to put the Question now, and that is what I must do.

DELEGATED LEGISLATION

Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 118(6) (Standing Committees on Delegated Legislation),

National Health Service

That the draft Health Service (Control of Patient Information) Regulations 2002, which were laid before this House on 26th March, be approved.—[Jim Fitzpatrick.]
	The House divided: Ayes 301, Noes 126.

Question accordingly agreed to.

CHOCOLATE PRODUCTION

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Ainger.]

Chris Pond: When some colleagues heard that I planned to raise the issue of chocolate slavery in the House, they thought that I wanted to share my concerns about addiction to chocolate. As a nation, we are to some extent all slaves to chocolate. Each of us in Britain consumes 7 kg of chocolate every year, and we spend a cool £4 billion annually on the product. It takes about 6,000 cocoa beans to make up our individual annual consumption of chocolate.
	My purpose in calling for this debate is to persuade us to pause between mouthfuls to think where those beans come from and at what cost, for consumers are not the only slaves to chocolate. In many countries of west Africa, as we now know, thousands of children and young people work as forced labour on the cocoa plantations.
	The scandal was dragged into our consciousness last year when a vessel, the Etireno, was found to have 40 children and young people aboard, most of them aged under 15, who were being trafficked to work in Gabon. Shocking though that was, it was not an isolated incident. UNICEF tells us that between 10,000 and 15,000 children a year are trafficked into Côte D'Ivoire alone, the largest of the cocoa producing countries of west Africa.
	We are told that a fit young man can be bought for the equivalent of £20 or less. He might then be forced to work for 80 to 100 hours a week, never be paid, rarely be fed and frequently be beaten. Anti-Slavery International, with which I have had the privilege to work over the years, has done much to keep the issue in the forefront of public attention. It relates the story of a child it names as "ID", who is now 15 years old but who was trafficked at the age of 13 to work on a coffee and yam plantation in Côte D'Ivoire:
	"Our day began at 5 am. Carrying heavy tools on our head, we had to walk six kilometres through mud and stones in bare feet to reach the fields. By the time we reached them, we were soaked through and exhausted. Once we arrived, the overseer showed us an area we each had to plant before the day's end. We were afraid of what he would do to us if we could not finish the work. This threat and the threat of being denied food if we could not finish in time forced us to work quickly . . . If we were ill and couldn't work, we were afraid that we would be tortured to death. One day I witnessed two of my colleagues being tortured for trying to escape. They became seriously ill and died".
	Outrage that fellow humans can be subjected to such exploitation is a natural response, but outrage is not enough. Outrage alone will not help the people living in the poor countries of west Africa, many of whom depend for their very existence on the cocoa industry. In Côte D'Ivoire, which is responsible for almost half the world's cocoa production, more than 7 million people are estimated to be dependent on the cocoa industry. Their conditions are made worse by the fact that the world price of cocoa is unstable and has been falling sharply. Today, it is little different from the level at which it stood 30 years ago.
	We have a responsibility to tackle exploitation, and, in particular, to make sure that the International Labour Organisation convention 182 on the worst forms of child labour is enforced. I am pleased that the UK Government have been taking a lead by supporting the work of the ILO and non-governmental organisations such as Save the Children and Anti-Slavery International in a number of west African countries. But we also have a responsibility to do that in such a way that we work with those nations in a joint effort to protect and build a fair trade in their products, allowing them to eliminate child slavery without also eliminating the industries on which their economies depend.
	That is why I also pay tribute to the Minister's predecessor at the Foreign and Commonwealth Office for bringing together almost exactly a year ago the largest cocoa producers, representatives of the Governments of Ghana and Côte D'Ivoire, the cocoa and chocolate industries, and non-governmental organisations to address the question of exploitative labour practices in west African cocoa production. The meeting resulted in the creation of a taskforce and a commitment to undertake research into the extent of exploitative labour practices in west African cocoa production. I hope that the Minister will be able to give us an indication tonight of the results of that research, or of when those results can be expected. I am sure that the House would also welcome a progress report on the work of the taskforce. Industry leaders have told me that they believe that the UK Government have an important role to play in promoting a continuing dialogue leading to action on this matter.
	The chocolate industry has also reacted constructively to the adverse publicity surrounding revelations of chocolate slavery, and I am grateful to the industry association, the Biscuit, Cake, Chocolate and Confectionery Alliance, and to Cadbury Schweppes itself, for providing me with briefings on their attempts to improve cocoa working practices. It should be made clear that the industry comprises not only the makers of chocolate bars—themselves leading world brand names—but the major food manufacturers, which purchase cocoa for the production of biscuits, cakes, breakfast cereals and a range of other foodstuffs that find their way into our shopping trolleys.
	The problem for the industry is that much of the cocoa is purchased on world markets, without any means of tracing its original source. The cocoa produced by the hundreds of thousands of smallholdings in countries such as Côte D'Ivoire is combined with that supplied from elsewhere. As a result, it is impossible for us to be sure that the products of slavery are not lurking in our kitchen cupboards and fridges.
	I should emphasise that the exploitation is not confined to countries such as Côte D'Ivoire and Ghana, whose Governments have joined others in actively working to tackle the problem. This is a problem that taints all products using cocoa, other than fair trade and most organic products.
	The industry's response has been constructive, as I have said. In September, it established a protocol for growing and processing cocoa beans in a manner that complies with ILO convention 182. The protocol sets out an action plan and defines a series of steps to eliminate the worst forms of child labour by 2005. It also establishes an advisory group and a joint foundation to act as a clearing house on best practice. The protocol provides for a series of independent surveys of child labour practices in west Africa. The industry is also seeking to help and encourage farmers in the producer countries to form themselves into co-operatives so as to increase their bargaining power on the sale of their products.
	I welcome those initiatives, and I know that hon. Members will welcome them. I hope that the Minister will be able to tell the House tonight that his Department is in regular contact with industry representatives to ensure that the protocol is being implemented effectively and vigorously. I hope that he will tell me that the Government are backing the fair trade movement as one way of ensuring that producers receive a fair price for their product. Does he support a demand for chocolate products to carry a "slavery free" label, so that consumers who wish to exercise their purchasing power to reject exploitation and reward corporate responsibility can do so?
	There may be good reasons for not calling for immediate direct action by consumers. Perhaps we should wait to see whether the industry, working with Governments and NGOs, can meet its own target of 2005 for the elimination of illegal labour practices. However, the economy of Côte d'Ivoire is fragile enough, and many people depend on cocoa to earn a legitimate, albeit meagre, living.
	The patience on our part must be dependent on making genuine progress; our patience must be strictly conditional if it is not simply to become an excuse for once again turning a blind eye to practices that had no place in the 18th century, let alone the 21st, and in the process turning our backs on people who need and deserve our protection.
	The industry can only ensure that its products are slave-free in one of two ways. Either it must source its raw materials directly from individual producers whom it knows are not using exploitative labour practices, or it must work with Governments and NGOs to ensure that those practices are eliminated throughout cocoa production.
	To do that we shall have to tackle the evil of child slavery at its root—and that root is poverty and debt. I applaud the work that this Government are doing to raise the standards of life for the poorest people in the poorest countries. This country has taken the lead in tackling the burden of debt that helps to trap people in a vicious spiral of poverty and indebtedness. I hope that the Minister can tell us what progress is being made in tackling the debt burden of countries such as Côte d'Ivoire and Ghana.
	The extent of modern-day slavery in the production of cocoa and chocolate is not yet known, but that it exists is not in doubt. The production of chocolate may not be the only, or even the main, industry using child and adult slaves. Other products that we use in our everyday lives, such as coffee and cotton, also account for a significant number of the 8 million children who the ILO believes are the victims of extreme exploitation. However, chocolate, as a luxury product with brand names that we can all identify, presents us with the starkest contrast between the comforts enjoyed by those of us in the richer countries and the hardship and exploitation in the poorest countries of the world on which that comfort depends.

Tony Colman: I asked the permission of my hon. Friend the Member for Gravesham (Mr. Pond), of yourself, Madam Deputy Speaker and of the Minister to participate in this debate.
	I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this debate on slavery in chocolate production—an area in which I have been interested since it was first raised with me in 1997 by a constituent, Professor Kevin Bales, who was then and still is the professor of sociology at the University of Surrey Roehampton, which was formerly known as the Roehampton institute. He went on to write the seminal book on current-day slavery, "Disposable People", which was nominated for the Pulitzer prize in 2000. He is director of the United States NGO, Free the Slaves, and a trustee of Anti-Slavery International. He was very keen that I should be able to speak in this debate in support of the protocol, which he has had a hand in negotiating, to ensure that slavery in cocoa production ceases.
	Professor Bales e-mailed me today to say
	"the Protocol . . . is a very good thing. It is the first time that an industry has taken social, moral, and economic responsibility for their entire product chain. The Anti-Slavery movement has been seeking such an agreement for something like 160 years (since the cotton and sugar industries were so heavily dependent on slave labour)."
	It being Ten o'clock, the motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, without Question put.
	Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Ainger.]

Tony Colman: The e-mail continues:
	"It is truly an historic agreement . . . The Protocol sets out three key steps, and a series of agreed dates for their achievement . . . The industry funds, but has no control over, fully independent research into the precise extent and location of abusive child and slave labour in the Ivory Coast. This research is now ended, the data are being analysed, and results will be available at the end of the month."
	The Minister may have early information, however.
	The second step is that
	"an independent foundation will be established to fund the NGOs or other bodies that will do the liberation and rehabilitation work necessary to remove children and adults from abusive situations. Agreements have been reached on the shape of this foundation and its establishment is moving ahead on schedule. The industry will fund it."
	Thirdly, an
	"independent system of inspection and verification will be established, again with industry financial support, but completely independent of them, to randomly inspect farms to root out any abusive practices."
	As my hon. Friend said, the
	"protocol is not restricted to the Ivory Coast, but all areas around the world where cocoa is grown. So far, the cocoa industry has been delivering on their side of the agreement on time and in full. It is possibly the best and biggest public-private initiative on human rights ever. It is a model for other industries . . . this is sorely needed since similar conditions obtain in coffee, sugar, cotton, and several other commodities."
	Professor Bales believes that the way forward is exactly what is happening—a true partnership of industry, human rights organisations, other NGOs and Governments to bring all our different expertise to bear in working out lasting and, I hope, permanent solutions. As my hon. Friend said, this situation is a stain on chocolate eating in this country and I am pleased to understand from my involvement with Professor Bales over the past five years that it is coming to an end.
	I was privileged to be on the Inter-Parliamentary Union visit to Côte d'Ivoire last September and on the International Development Committee visit to Ghana in March. On each occasion, the matter was discussed extensively with parliamentarians, NGOs and cocoa farmers.
	When the Select Committee visited Ghana, we became aware of a report on child trafficking in that country produced by Tengey and Oguaah on behalf of the Danish International Development Agency, published in February 2002. The conference took place in March while we were there. Interestingly, the work being done by trafficked children includes fishing, selling, home helps, truck pushing and farming, but the latter accounts for only 3 per cent. of the total work carried out by those children.
	I hope that the report truly reflects the results of the research—it is a stain on humankind that such trafficking ever happened—and that child trafficking has now ceased in Côte d'Ivoire and Ghana in the field of cocoa production.

Claire Ward: First, I draw the House's attention to a declaration in the Register of Members' Interests and inform Members that I am the chair of the all-party group on the chocolate and confectionary industry. That may seem to many people to be a strange and perhaps indulgent group to be involved with, but I assure the House that the group was established not to allow Members purely to debate the interesting and tasty products that we have in this country, but to consider the range of issues that affect the chocolate and confectionary industry. This issue is one of the most important at present.
	Indeed, not long ago the group held a meeting in which it was interesting to hear industry representatives who had come to talk about their work on developing the protocol, as well as representatives of Anti-Slavery International, who explained their work on highlighting issues in Côte d'Ivoire and other west African countries. What was important about that meeting was not only the interest showed by Members, but the fact that we had in our midst the great-grandson of Lord Wilberforce. It is strange that centuries later we are here discussing slavery despite Lord Wilberforce's ancestor having put so much time, effort and dedication into abolishing it.
	I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Gravesham (Mr. Pond) on securing the debate, which is important not only for the industry in the United Kingdom in terms of the economy and the jobs that rest on its work, but for the livelihoods of producers and workers on cocoa farms, especially those who are exploited. In the past 18 months, the industry has worked across the world with non-governmental organisations and the Government to develop the protocol. That is a significant step forward both in recognising some of the problems that affect the industry and in seeking ways in which they can be dealt with.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Gravesham mentioned the development of the protocol and the introduction of independent surveys of child labour practices in west Africa. I hope that the results of those surveys will lead to objective and positive steps forward in the work that is being done on the protocol.

Oona King: Although it is obviously fantastic that the industry has recognised the problem, it goes far beyond what the industry can do. Given the volatility of cocoa prices in particular and commodity prices in general, we need to consider how to eliminate the double standards that plague our trading systems around the world.

Claire Ward: My hon. Friend is right to identify that one of the industry's problems is the fluctuating cost of cocoa, which naturally increases the pressures on cocoa farms. That is a matter that the whole industry needs to consider. Its work with NGOs and the Government to secure the protocol and to agree what else it can do to encourage co-operatives and to provide additional assistance in cocoa production is a positive step that we should welcome.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Gravesham talked about direct action. I hope that consumers do not take direct action at this point, because that would not be helpful. It is important to recognise the work that has taken place so far.
	I thank my hon. Friend for providing this opportunity to debate an important subject that has brought many hon. Members into the Chamber. All sorts of frivolous comments may be made about the fact that we have such an all-party group and that we are discussing chocolate and cocoa production. Most importantly, however, we are discussing the rights of human beings in this world and the action that we can take to support those who are involved in the industry to ensure that we abolish slavery for good. We should promote what is in my view, as a significant consumer of its product, an important industry and deal with this important issue which it faces.

Denis MacShane: It is unusual for an Adjournment debate late at night to be so well attended. Perhaps the spirit of Sir William, later Lord Wilberforce, who made many of the same points about slavery 170 to 200 years ago, can be felt through the ages. It is good that so many Labour Members have attended the debate, and it is interesting that the Opposition Benches are empty. I hope that the great William—part Whig, part Tory—will look down from wherever it is that hon. Members go, and see that at least one party in our country is committed to the principles by which he made Britain great.
	Hon. Members made several different points, and I am grateful to my hon. Friend and fellow London marathon runner, the Member for Gravesham (Mr. Pond), for choosing the debate. I agree with the points made by my hon. Friends the Members for Putney (Mr. Colman) and for Watford (Ms Ward), and I commend their temperate comments, and the fact that they did not urge action that could damage the people whom we are trying to help. It would satisfy all of us who enjoy our chocolate to know that we can eat it without the taint of the accusation that it was made using slavery, child labour, or forced or abducted labour.
	I used to work in Switzerland, and am partial to the chocolates of Lindt, Nestlé and Suchard. Those of us who are familiar with Belgium know the great chocolates of Neuhaus and Côte d'Or. Since I was three years old and ate my first Crunchie bar, I have had a weakness for that unique British product. It would be good to know that all the chocolates that we enjoy eating were made in fair conditions.
	My hon. Friends have referred to fair trade, to which the Government are committed. A few years ago I took my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for International Development to Tesco in my constituency at Christmas, and we filled our shopping basket with fair trade goods to try to set a modest example of, "Do as I do, not as I say." In my office, my hon. Friends are served with fairly traded tea and coffee.
	However, I insist on sensitivity. In the United States the steel lobby insists that its protectionism operates in the interests of fair trade. The powerful agriculture lobby that got Congress to pass measures that will further deny the agricultural products of Africa and Latin America access to the American market claims that it is acting in the interests of fair trade. We must be careful to ensure that one person's fair trade is not another's excuse for protectionism. Hon. Members who have taken part in the debate do not intend that.
	We must place our discussion in the context of the wider Government policy, to which the Foreign and Commonwealth Office is committed, of opening up trade in the richer markets in Europe to the agricultural products of the developing world. That is at the core of what the Prime Minister has been preaching—if I may use that verb—around the world. I heard the Prime Minister convey that message in Latin America last year and I heard him again in Madrid at the European, Latin American and Caribbean summit. He will take the message to Johannesburg and the world summit on sustainable development.

Oona King: Did some people not believe that the industry had not moved quickly enough on fair trade chocolate? We are pleased about the current movement because we are now considering people's dignity and rights as human beings, not their right to a job in, for example, the American steel industry.

Denis MacShane: My hon. Friend is right. Her commitment and passion on this subject are well recognised by the House and the wider public. As hon. Members have said, the cocoa industry and chocolate producers in our country and the United States have risen to the challenge put to them by public opinion and by organisations such as Anti-Slavery International. In that sense, they may be ahead of international commodity production and manufacturing organisations in other nations. Again, the leadership from the United Kingdom and from American senators, American NGOs and American companies shows that although on some issues we have much to criticise about aspects of what the United States does, in this regard, the United States and the United Kingdom are ahead of the game compared with many other players in Europe and elsewhere.

Stephen Pound: I apologise for interrupting the Minister, but I wonder whether he could share some information about what specific action Her Majesty's Government are taking on the implementation of the protocol.

Denis MacShane: I am coming to that very point.
	The issue hit the headlines last year when there were reports of a ship off Benin, the Etireno, having a full cargo of slaves and being refused entry at different west African ports. Britain responded to the plight of the Etireno and sent HMS Glasgow to the bight of Benin to help to find out exactly what was going on.
	We know that that particular incident has been somewhat exaggerated. The children on board were in a terrible condition, but there were not 200 of them, and there was little evidence of a link between the Etireno and the cocoa industry. However, the publicity and the action of diverting a Royal Navy vessel to the area helped to draw attention to the problems of child trafficking and child labour in west Africa.
	Shortly after the Etireno incident, my predecessor at the Foreign Office, who is now the Minister for Industry and Energy, called a meeting of representatives of the cocoa trade, the Governments of Côte d'Ivoire and of Ghana, the chocolate industry here, and leading NGOs to discuss the issue. A follow-up workshop was held last summer, at which a taskforce was set up.
	In parallel, there was a push in the United States by Senators Harkin and Engel to commit the cocoa industry to a global protocol. That protocol seeks to ensure active efforts by the industry to ensure that International Labour Organisation convention 182 on the prohibition and elimination of the worst forms of child labour is applied.
	The United States chocolate industry signed up to the protocol on 19 September 2001. CAOBISCO, the association of the chocolate, biscuit and confectionery industries of the European Union, the European Cocoa Association and the International Cocoa Organisation, currently based in London but to relocate to Abidjan, all formally endorsed the global protocol. It has the support of the International Union of Food, Agricultural, Hotel, Restaurant, Catering, Tobacco and Allied Workers Associations, and of the ILO. It has been welcomed by the NGOs campaigning in the sector. Anti-Slavery International says:
	"Anti-Slavery welcomes the commitments made, particularly the acceptance of industry responsibility to protect all workers not just children".
	Indeed, responding to the complaint that the protocol was focused exclusively on child labour and failed to address the possible problem of forced labour by adults, key industry and non-governmental actors agreed a joint statement extending their co-operation to include identifying and eliminating forced labour in line with ILO convention 29. That reinforces the role of the ILO and its vital tripartite negotiations on these grave social issues globally.
	As for the points raised by hon. Members, the first step in implementing the protocol was the establishment of an advisory group—the broad consultative group—which was established on 1 December last year. Industry- financed surveys are in progress on the ground, because it is vital that we establish the facts. The attention that the media rightly draw to the problem is to be welcomed, but a headline report—even a very professional broadcasting report—does not obviate the need for proper investigation of the facts.
	Three surveys are being conducted, under the auspices of the United States Agency for International Development, the International Institute for Tropical Agriculture and the International Labour Organisation. The surveys—of farms and farmers, of communities, and of small-scale producers and workers on the farms—should provide the most authoritative assessment so far of the scale of the problem of exploitative labour in cocoa production. We expect the results to emerge shortly—before the end of the summer, we hope. The taskforce does not belong to the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, but we expect members of it to reconvene to examine the outcome of the surveys, and to take their conclusions to a major conference review—planned by the Côte d'Ivoire—on the findings. Indeed, the ILO is fully involved in shaping a response to the survey.
	As we know, the global protocol has set the ambitious target of establishing by July 2005 an industry-wide scheme to certify that cocoa beans and their derivative products have been grown and processed without using any of the worst forms of child labour. There is a long way to go before that is achieved, but I believe that the chocolate industry's response to international concern about the use of child labour in cocoa production provides a good example of what we now call corporate social responsibility.
	None of us should be in any doubt about the difficulties involved in ensuring that there is absolutely no abuse of child labour in cocoa production. About 70 per cent. of the world's cocoa comes from west Africa. The four largest producers are Côte d'Ivoire, which produces 40 per cent., Ghana, which produces 15 per cent., Nigeria, which produces 7 per cent., and Cameroon, which produces 4 per cent. Cocoa is grown in some of the least accessible forest areas of west Africa. It is a very small-scale industry. As my hon. Friend the Member for Gravesham noted, there are well over 500,000 producers in Côte d'Ivoire alone.
	Cocoa grows naturally in west Africa, so minimal inputs are needed. At harvest time, middlemen—many of whom are Lebanese—drive to the forest areas in trucks and purchase the cocoa from the producers. The cocoa beans are then dried in Abidjan before being sold on. Most are sold to large cocoa bean traders and pressers—such as Cargill, Barry Callebaut and Arch Daniels Midland—before being sold on again to the chocolate companies whose names we all know. So there is quite a long chain: from small farm production to the sale in shops of chocolate bars and boxes of chocolates. In this respect, cocoa differs from the tea or coffee industry, in which it is more common for multinational companies to own the farms directly.
	Local ownership of cocoa farms has many advantages. For example, it gives local producers greater discretion to take their own decisions in the light of their own interests. However, the long chain between producer and consumer makes it more difficult to monitor production, and to ensure that there is no use of exploitative labour. Tomorrow, Cadbury's European works council will meet in Birmingham. Although some chocolate producers in Britain have trade union organisations, the chance of creating such organisations on the small farms of the Côte d'Ivoire is, alas, virtually nil. We must seek the means to address that problem.
	There is one point of principle that the House should be aware of. Whatever the level of child labour in cocoa production—I hope that the surveys that I mentioned will soon provide better information on that—there is no doubt that child trafficking in its broadest sense is a considerable problem in west Africa. Typically, children are lured from, or sold from, very poor countries—notably Mali and Burkina Faso—to other west African countries to work in domestic service, as beggars, or in other areas of the economy.
	Britain has had a leading role in establishing the legal framework to prevent abusive child labour. We played a major part in ensuring agreement in 1999 on ILO convention 182 on the prohibition and elimination of the worst forms of child labour. That convention, on which the cocoa industry's global protocol is based, outlaws in particular all slavery, sale and trafficking, debt bondage, serfdom and forced or compulsory labour of children.
	We have worked hard, and diplomats from the Foreign Office are asking Governments to work hard, to ensure that the convention is ratified. Senegal, Ghana, Mali and Niger ratified in 2000. I am pleased to report that the Gambia, Burkina Faso, Cape Verde and Benin ratified in 2001 and Cameroon ratified earlier this month. The Côte d'Ivoire Government tell us that ratification has completed its parliamentary procedures, and that deposit of their instrument of ratification is imminent.
	Work on child labour is an important element of the Department for International Development's partnership framework with the ILO. The Department is also supporting the anti-slavery international project to develop the capacity of local NGOs to end the trafficking and abuse of child domestic workers in Benin, Burkina Faso, Gabon, Ghana, Niger and Togo.
	As hon. Members have pointed out, it is the economic framework within which the abuses take place on which we need to concentrate much of the Foreign Office's policy. In some cases, labour by young family members on a farm is not necessarily bad. However, the root cause of child labour and child trafficking is poverty, and that is what we must tackle. That is why I am proud that the Government are leaders in the poverty reduction instrument known as the HIPC—heavily indebted poor countries—initiative.
	Burkina Faso has gone through the HIPC process and reached completion point, thus receiving irrevocable debt reduction, and Ghana, Cameroon and Mali have reached decision point, so are receiving some interim relief on their debt servicing.
	We must also try to develop fair trade systems for poor countries. At the moment, the combined subsidies for agriculture in the EU, North America and Japan amount to more than the combined GDP of sub-Saharan Africa. We give about $50 billion a year in aid worldwide, but we provide $360 billion dollars in subsidies to our farmers, thus crowding out the produce of the poorest of the world. We need to keep fighting to ensure that the terms of trade are fair, and that there is, for example, no tariff or subsidy escalation.
	The combined pressure of my hon. Friends, NGOs, concerned individuals in the industry and, above all, consumers has achieved a great deal. The taskforce set up by the Foreign Office last year has helped to bring together producer countries, the industry and NGOs. The industry has been spurred into action and, to its credit, has accepted and started to shoulder its responsibility. Much has to be done. It is no use simply having meetings in London if on the ground local managers and representatives are not responding to the wishes and desires of the industry leaders in the taskforce.
	Consumers can continue to play a role in demonstrating their preference for products that have been produced fairly. The fact that they are prepared to pay a little more sends an important message, but ultimately the goal must be to ensure that all production is fair. I am glad that my hon. Friends stressed the point that boycotts would only damage the most vulnerable growers, increasing the problem of poverty, and so increasing the likelihood of abuse of children.
	There is no immediate or easy solution to the problem of exploitative labour practices in cocoa production, but I believe that a good start has been made to tackling it. That is a small but vital part of what the Foreign Office does on behalf of the people of Britain. I end, as I began, by thinking that William Wilberforce would heartily approve of the action we are taking, and I thank hon. Members for the contributions that they have made to the debate.
	Question put and agreed to.
	Adjourned accordingly at half-past Ten o'clock.